Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ENGAGEMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERFORMANCE IN A MULTIGENERATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Theresa Gibbons BBA, Simon Fraser University, 1999
PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In the Faculty
of Business Administration
Management of Technology
O Theresa Gibbons 2005
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Fall 2005
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author.
APPROVAL
Name:
Degree:
Title of Project:
Theresa Gibbons
Master of Business Administration
Engagement, Motivation, and Performance in a Multigenerational Organization
Supervisory Committee:
Dr. Aidan Vining Senior Supervisor Professor, Faculty of Business Administration
Date Approved:
Dr. Michael Parent Second Reader Associate Professor Academic Director, MBA Programs Faculty of Business Administration
'"' SIMON FRASER Q? UNWERSlTYl i brary &+.&
DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE
The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection, and, without changing the content, to translate the thesislproject or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, BC, Canada
SIMON FRASER B UNIVERSITY~ i bra r y &&
STATEMENT OF ETHICS APPROVAL
The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained, for the research described in this work, either:
(a) Human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics,
(b) Advance approval of the animal care protocol from the University Animal Care Committee of Simon Fraser University;
or has conducted the research
(c) as a co-investigator, in a research project approved in advance,
(d) as a member of a course approved in advance for minimal risk human research, by the Office of Research Ethics.
A copy of the approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project.
The original application for approval and letter of approval are filed with the relevant offices. Inquiries may be directed to those authorities.
Bennett Library Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada
ABSTRACT
This analysis seeks to assess the effects of generational cohort membership on
employee engagement and motivation. Research findings on motivation, employee
engagement, and generational cohort differences provide the basis for the analysis. The
purpose of this report is to investigate whether employee engagement measures are
equivalent for employees of all generational cohorts.
This paper is comprised of seven main parts. The first section is a review of
HRM knowledge. Section two considers Canadian demographics today and over the next
twenty years. Section three discusses generational cohort understanding and knowledge.
Section four is an analysis of generational cohort influence on employee engagement and
motivation. Section five proposes a variety of ways to utilize the findings. Section six is
a set of recommendations for a specific company application. The final section
introduces a select number of ways to improve employee engagement and motivation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Simon Fraser University's faculty and staff for making my
MBA experience an unforgettable one. The knowledge and experience I gained has
changed my perspective and greatly contributed to my ability to contribute in an
organization. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Aidan Vining and Dr. Michael
Parent for their guidance in writing this final project.
To TELUS I am grateful for their support of my career and assistance in the
completion of this program. I would like to specifically thank Josh Blair and Pam
Halverson for their strong belief in continuous learning and the personal guidance they
have shown to me over the past few years. I am pleased to include a disclaimer in this
document as the opinions and recommendations put forward in this report are solely mine
and not those of TELUS.
To my fellow classmates I would like to say thank you for the great memories. I
have learned a great deal from you all, and I will always carry this with me. I hope we
will stay in touch.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband David, my parents, and extended
family for supporting me throughout my education years. Your unwavering
encouragement, support, and belief in my abilities enabled me to complete this program.
Without your support, I would not be where I am today.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. Approval ............................................................................................................................ 11
... ............................................................................................................................. Abstract 111
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... v .. List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vn .. List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vn ... Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................... VIII
1 . Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
2 . What We Know About HRM .................................................................................. 4 2.1 Organizational Performance and Employees ....................................................... 4 2.2 Motivation and Job Satisfaction ........................................................................... 7 2.3 Employee Motivation Theory .............................................................................. 8
...................................................................................... 2.4 Employee Engagement -16 2.5 Summary: Highly Motivated and Engaged Employees Positively
Impact Firm Performance ................................................................................... 19
3 . Canadian Age Cohort Demographics ................................................................... 20 3.1 Total Canadian Workforce by Age .................................................................... 20
.................................................... 3.2 Canadian Workforce by Generational Cohort 21 3.3 Summary: Changing Workforce Age Demographics Will Impact
.................................................................... Canadian Firms in the Near Future 23
.................................................... . 4 What We Know About Generational Cohorts 25 4.1 An Introduction to Generational Cohort Theory ................................................ 25
........................................................................ 4.2 Generational Cohort Definitions 27 4.2.1 Demographic View .................................................................................... 27
.................................................................................. 4.2.2 Social Science View 28 ............................................................................ 4.3 Workplace Cohorts Identified 30
4.3.1 World War I1 I Silent Generation ............................................................... 32 4.3.2 Baby Boomers ............................................................................................ 33 4.3.3 Generation X I The Baby Bust ................................................................... 35
....................... 4.3.4 The Baby-Boom Echo 1 Millennials / Millennium Busters 36 4.4 Generational Cohort Differences ....................................................................... 38 4.5 Age in the Workforce ......................................................................................... 47 4.6 Summary: Some Generational Cohort Characteristics May Have
Implications for the Workforce .......................................................................... 48
5 . TELUS Communications Overview ..................................................................... 50 ............................................................................................... 5.1 Company History 50
............................................................................................ 5.2 The Industry Today 52 ............................................................................. 5.3 The Regulatory Environment 52
5.4 TELUS' Labour Situation .................................................................................. 53 5.5 Employee Base ................................................................................................... 54 5.6 Summary: An Engaged and Motivation Workforce is Necessary to
............................................................ Gain Competitive Advantage at TELUS 56
6 . The Implications of Generational Research on Employee Motivation and Engagement ..................................................................................................... 57
6.1 Motivation Theory Conclusions ......................................................................... 57 6.2 Motivators and Engagement Drivers .................................................................. 58
............................................................. 6.3 Engagement and Motivation Measures -60 6.4 Generational Cohort Differences and Drivers of Motivation and
........................................................................................................ Engagement 62 .................................................................. 6.5 The TELUS Communications Case -66
6.6 Summary: TELUS Should Consider Generational Differences In Light of Employee Engagement and Motivation ......................................................... 69
7 . Alternative Ways of Conceptualizing Employee Engagement at TELUS ........ 70
8 . Recommendations For TELUS Engagement and Measurement ....................... 73
............... 9 . Techniques for Improving Workplace Motivation and Engagement 75 .................................................................................. 9.1 Job Characteristics Model 75
.......................................................................................... 9.2 Vertical Job Loading 78
10 . Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix: Hewitt Engagement Questionnaire ............................................................. 82
References ......................................................................................................................... 83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Herzberg Job Attitudes ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Hewitt Engagement Model .............................................................................. -18 Figure 3: 2004 Canadian Labour Force as a Proportion of the Total By Age .................. 21 Figure 4: Canadian Labour Force Projections: Cohort Comparison ................................ 22 Figure 5: Canadian Labour Force Projection Trends ....................................................... 23 Figure 6: Cohort Definitions by Birth Year ...................................................................... 31 Figure 7: TELUS Total Employee Breakdown by Cohort ............................................... 55 Figure 8: TELUS Management vs . Union Employee Breakdown by Cohort .................. 56 Figure 9: Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation ................................................ 76
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Perceptions of Generational Cohort Characteristics ......................................... 40 Table 2: Proven Differences in Generational Cohorts .................................................... 43 Table 3: Motivation and Engagement Drivers ................................................................ 59 Table 4: Generational Cohort Differences and Drivers of Motivation and
Engagement ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 5: Vertical Job Loading Recommendations .......................................................... 79
vii
DISCLAIMER
Any opinions presented in this report are expressly those of the author and do not
in any manner reflect the official position of TELUS.
1. INTRODUCTION
A high performance workforce is an important element in creating a successful
business. When competitive advantage through technology, a superior product, and entry
barriers is not possible, people are often what differentiate a successful organization from
an unsuccessful one. Creating a high performance workforce, however, is not an easy
task. Studies on human behaviour within organizations have shown that the creation of a
high performance workforce is complicated (Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi, 1997;
Sonnenfeld, 1985). Many factors affect whether or not an organization can in fact
become high performing.
Human resource management (HRM) research finds that people practices
correlate positively with firm performance (Huselid, 1995; Pringle and Kroll, 1997;
Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi, 1997). In addition, research suggests that high levels of
employee job satisfaction link to increased employee motivation (Herzberg, 2003). High
levels of motivation link to increased organizational performance (Jurkiewicz and Brown,
1998). Highly engaged employees drive higher performance (Hewitt, 2004). This
research suggests that employers should focus attention on motivating and engaging their
employees in an effort to improve firm performance (Herzberg, 2003; Hewitt, 2004).
Generational cohort differences between employees compound the complexity in
creating a high performance workforce. Today's workforce is comprised of four
generations of employees. In the near future, all four will participate in equal proportions
within Canadian organizations. Demographers, social science researchers, and writers
1
suggest differences between generational cohorts in values, beliefs, expectations, and
behaviours (Strauss and Howe, 1991; Foot, 1998; Torres-Gil, 1992). They suggest that
these differences manifest in all aspects of an individual's life including work. The
identification of generational cohort characteristics, however, is highly debated.
Perceptions may not reflect reality in all cases, and stereotypes are common. Lifecycle
affects also impact motivation (Kovach, 1995; Jurgensen, 1978; Jurkiewicz and Brown,
1998). This can blur the lines between valid generational cohort differences and life
stage influences.
The purpose of this report is to investigate whether employee engagement
measures are equivalent for employees of all generational cohorts. This report first
reviews current understanding of HRM practices and their impact on high performance
within a firm. A specific focus will be on job satisfaction, motivation, and employee
engagement as key drivers of high performance. Various theories presented suggest
ways to determine levels of employee engagement and motivation in organizations.
Next, the paper reviews generational cohort theory and cohort differences. This
review identifies and defines the four cohorts that are active in today's workforce as well
as those generational cohorts working in Canada over the next twenty years. This
section compares perceived differences between generational cohorts with research
findings to assess the validity of cohort differences in the workplace. A brief discussion
on life stage issues accompanies this section. Life stage issues can often be confused
with generational cohort characteristics.
An analysis of employee engagement and generational cohort differences follows
to assess the areas of similarities and differences between generational cohorts in
workplace engagement. Recommendations for employee engagement measures across
generational cohorts follow to take into account proven generational cohort differences in
the workplace that affect engagement.
Finally, this report will apply the results of this study to a large,
telecommunications company. The findings will consider company specific
characteristics in light of the research. Recommendations follow for how this company
can most effectively make generational cohort considerations in their HR and
management strategies to build a high perfonnance team.
2. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HRM
The following is a review of current HRM knowledge. A basic premise of HRM
is that how organizations manage their people affects firm performance. Further,
research suggests that people can be the basis of competitive advantage in an
organization (Pringle and Kroll, 1997). As a result, it is necessary to understand what
influences people to engage in high performing behaviours. This review considers
organizational performance and employees as well as employee job satisfaction,
motivation and engagement in relation to high performance.
2.1 Organizational Performance and Employees
Employees can make the difference between success and failure in an
organization. Simply designing jobs as efficiently as possible will not ensure an
organization's success as once thought (Taylor, 19 1 1). One of the first studies to reveal
this began in 1924. The Hawthorne studies revealed the social complexities of
organization life. They further showed that these complexities influence firm
performance.
Western Electric of Chicago conducted the Hawthorne studies over a period of
nine years. There were six studies in total. The studies involved varying work conditions
to see the impact on performance. Factors varied included rest break durations, length of
workdays and weeks, incentive plans, supervision styles, employee participation levels,
and work groups (Sonnenfeld, 1985). The Hawthorne studies revealed that productivity
changes as factors in the environment change.
Sonnenfeld highlights some of the key results from the Hawthorne studies
(Sonnenfeld, 1985). Production rose and absenteeism declined when work conditions
were progressively relaxed. Production increased by 12% quickly after the introduction
of an incentive plan. Morale and productivity rose with a participative style of
management and less focus on quotas and discipline. Employee motivation rose when
the company solicited employee opinions.
Sonnenfeld conducted a recent review of the Hawthorne study results. Although
critics question the validity of these results, Sonnenfeld asserted evidence that supports
the Hawthorne studies' original findings (Sonnenfeld, 1985). His reviews considered
published reports, observers' records, secondary statistical analysis, and recent interviews
with study participants. Through this review, Sonnenfeld found strong support for the
Hawthorne study results.
Sonnenfeld further proposed that the Hawthorne studies raised questions about
how to motivate employees, what effective leadership and supervision is, how to use
employee involvement in decision-making, what factors influence job satisfaction, what
affects resistance to change, and how group norms factor into workplace performance.
The Hawthorne studies laid the groundwork for future studies on employee participation,
incentive plans, work design, small work groups, and leadership among other things
(Sonnenfeld, 1 985).
A hrther conclusion from the Hawthorne studies is that organizations should
consider independent factors in the work environment from a systems perspective. The
5
studies found that various factors in the work environment were interconnected. These
factors included work conditions, incentive systems, supervision, employee participation,
group dynamics, coaching, and autonomy among other things. Varying levels of one
factor can have a positive or negative effect on other factors. Subsequent studies support
these findings.
Work conducted by Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi reveals that "clusters of
complementary human resource management practices have large effects on productivity,
while changes in individual work practices have little or no effect on productivity"
(Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi, 1997, p. 291). Their study of 36 steel production lines
fbrther showed that incentive pay plans paired with supportive work practices such as
flexible job design, employee participation in problem solving, training, job security, and
communication substantially increase performance. These findings highlight the
complexities of HRM. Organizations should carefully choose HRM practices to ensure
the optimal mix to enable superior performance. The effects can potentially be worse
than without any practices if HRM practices are not complementary,
Other more recent research on the topic of HRM and firm performance suggests
people practices have positive affects on firm performance. Huselid's research suggests
that high performance work practices positively influence firm performance (Huselid,
1995). His findings show increased productivity and decreased turnover due to high
performance work practices that positively influence employee skill development and
motivation. Pringle and Kroll found that people are more likely (than other forms of
competitive advantage) to lead to a sustainable competitive advantage in rapidly
changing environments (Pringle and Kroll, 1997). Youndt et al. suggest that this is
because economic changes and globalization weaken other traditional sources of
competitive advantage including market, financial capital, and economies of scale
(Youndt, Snell, Dean and Lepak, 1996).
As the research detailed above shows, people can affect firm performance. As
such, organizations must focus their attention on people practices to gain maximum firm
performance. A particular focus on influencing individual employee performance is
required.
2.2 Motivation and Job Satisfaction
Motivation refers to "the internal forces that arouse, direct, and maintain a
person's voluntary choice of behaviour" (McShane, 1992). Motivation is often broken
into two additional definitions, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is
motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end. "Individuals who are
extrinsically motivated work on tasks because they believe that participation will result in
desirable outcomes, such as rewards, praise, or an avoidance of punishment" (Pintrich
and Schunk, 2005). Individuals are extrinsically motivated if they view work solely as a
means to a paycheque, benefits, and survival. They will work only as much as is
necessary to obtain the extrinsic, desirable outcomes.
Intrinsic motivation is "a process of arousal and satisfaction in which the rewards
come from carrying out an activity rather than from a result of the activity" (Beswick,
2002). Another definition is "choosing to do an activity for no compelling reason,
beyond the satisfaction derived from the activity itself - it's what motivates us to do
something when we don't have to do anything" (Raffini, 2005). Organizations today
often discuss intrinsic motivation as highly desirable. Intrinsically motivated employees
will perform to high standards for internal reasons as opposed to for what the
organization is giving them. This discretionary effort leads to work performed beyond
expectations.
Research shows that highly motivated employees are more likely to be high
performers than less motivated employees are. Jurkiewicz and Brown cite studies in their
article entitled GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures that identify motivated employees as
essential in organizations meeting their productivity and efficiency goals (Jurkiewicz and
Brown, 1998). They also cite &her work showing that managers who are able to
determine what motivates their employees are more likely to have employees who work
beyond expectations.
Herzberg's studies find a connection between job satisfaction and motivation.
Herzberg suggests that individuals with high levels of job satisfaction exhibit high levels
of motivation (Herzberg, 2003). As highly motivated employees lead to increased
productivity, organizations should look to increase employee job satisfaction and
motivation as a way to improve organizational performance.
2.3 Employee Motivation Theory
There is a large body of research on the topic of employee motivation. Some of
the earliest work on the topic comes from Abraham Maslow (Maslow, 1943). Maslow's
research suggests that a hierarchy of needs exists in all human beings. Levels in the
hierarchy from lowest level needs to highest-level needs are physiological, safety,
belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow's studies suggest that human
beings are motivated to meet each level of needs sequentially. That is to say, those
individuals who cannot meet their basic survival (physiological) needs will not be
motivated to meet self-actualization needs until all levels in between are sufficiently met
(Maslow, 1954).
McShane describes the role of organizations in meeting each level of employee
needs (McShane, 1992). Employers provide a comfortable work environment and
sufficient pay to meet employee physiological needs. Safety needs are met by work
environments that are safe, free of threats (such as layoffs), and offer insurance benefits.
Interpersonal work relationships and a social atmosphere feed belongingness needs.
Achievement, recognition, and respect fulfil esteem needs. Achieving one's full potential
satisfies the highest-level need of self-actualization.
Maslow's need hierarchy theory lays the groundwork for subsequent work
conducted on the topic of employee motivation. Some researchers challenge his theory,
however, as overly simplistic. McShane describes some criticisms (McShane, 1992).
First, some individuals do not seek to fulfil higher levels of needs, but stop at some point
in the hierarchy. Second, individuals may also seek to fulfil multiple levels of needs at
the same time. Third, the five levels do not adequately describe all individual needs.
Although these criticisms may be valid, many believe in the general concepts of
Maslow's work. Subsequent research on the topic of motivation consistently references
Maslow's research.
Herzberg followed Maslow in further developing understanding of employee
motivation. He conducted studies in the 1950's and 1960's on the topic of motivation
and job satisfaction. His findings reveal sources of job satisfaction that result in high
motivation as well as sources of job dissatisfaction that have no effect on motivation
(Herzberg, 2003). His work suggests that organizations should focus specific attention
on sources of job satisfaction to increase motivation, thereby increasing organizational
performance. A lesser focus should be on sources that result in job dissatisfaction, as
these do not affect motivation.
Herzberg's original research included interviews with 200 engineers and
accountants (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 1959). The studies asked employees to
identify job events that led to both extreme job satisfaction and extreme job
dissatisfaction. The responses revealed five main factors that led to extreme job
satisfaction. These were achievement, recognition, work content, responsibility, and
advancement. They found that work content, responsibility, and advancement were the
most important of the five in leading to lasting satisfaction. The studies also found five
factors that led to extreme job dissatisfaction. These factors were company policy and
administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions.
Herzberg's Motivation to Work Study is the basis for his Motivation-Hygiene
Theory. Herzberg suggests that employees have two different kinds of needs. The first
set of needs concerns survival and basic biological needs. These relate closely to
Maslow's identified lowest level needs. Herzberg refers to those factors that satisfjr these
needs as Hygiene Factors. They are external to the work itself. Hygiene factors include
salary, working conditions, job security, status, supervision, work relationships, and
organizational policy and administration. Herzberg's research suggests that by satisfying
hygiene factors, employers will reduce job dissatisfaction but will not affect motivation
(Herzberg, 2003). As motivation leads to increased performance, satisfying hygiene
factors will not on its own influence firm performance. This suggests that firm
investments in raising levels of compensation and improving working conditions will
have limited affects on firm performance.
The second set of needs relates to an individual's desire for achievement and
growth. These needs relate closely to Maslow's identified highest-level needs (esteem
and self-actualization). Factors that satisfy this set of needs are motivator factors. Job
content is central to this at work. Motivator factors include achievement, recognition,
work activities, growth, responsibility, and advancement. According to Herzberg,
employers that satisfy motivator factors will increase job satisfaction and motivation. His
study also suggests that motivator factors are effective in achieving high levels of
performance (Herzberg, 2003). It follows that firm investments in the motivator factors
will lead to improved firm performance.
Critics propose that Herzberg's studies are too simplistic. Brown identifies
criticisms of his work in a summary of later studies replicating Herzberg's original work
on factors affecting job attitudes (Brown, 2002). One criticism is that his study has
limited applicability because respondents were limited to accountants and engineers.
Another criticism is in Herzberg's selection of the variables as he chose them himself.
Brown reviews results from several subsequent studies conducted to test Herzberg's
original results. In this article, Brown finds that several studies hl ly support Herzberg's
findings while other studies find slight inconsistencies. Inconsistencies found, mainly
surround which factors are motivator factors and which are hygiene factors. Brown's
review identifies one main factor shown in multiple studies not to differentiate between a
satisfier and a dissatisfier. This factor is possibility for growth. Some studies supported
Herzberg's original work characterizing this factor as a satisfier while other studies
showed this factor as a dissatisfier.
A recent article by Herzberg combines research from 1 1 studies in a review of
motivator and hygiene factors (Herzberg, 2003). In this review, 1,685 employees
identified those job events that led to the greatest job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.
Researchers categorized the responses into hygiene and motivator categories. The results
overall support Herzberg's original findings that motivator factors lead to job satisfaction
while hygiene factors lead to job dissatisfaction. Figure 1 shows these results.
Figure 1: Herzberg Job Attitudes
Factors affecting job attitudes as reportcd in 12 investiyatiorls
Factors characarlz~ng 1,844 events on the job that led to extreme d~ssat~sfaction
Factdo character~zing 1.753 ennu on the job that k t to extreme satisfaction
Tml Mall factors Total of all fxtofi contrlbutingropb comnbuting m)ob
diuatlsfmion ratidsctron rn percentage frequency
Source: Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review. From "One More Time: How DO You Motivate Employees?" by Frederick Herzberg, Issue 1 0112003. Copyright O 2003, by the Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, all rights reserved.
Figure 1 shows a breakdown of employee responses by hygiene and motivator
factors. Overall, this summary supports Herzberg's initial findings as 8 1 % of all
motivator factor responses cited were in reference to job events that led to extreme
satisfaction. Hygiene factor responses were responsible for 69% of all events leading to
extreme job dissatisfaction.
The results also show which factors led to the greatest amount of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Of all events, those identified as achievement events led to the greatest
number of satisfied employees. Recognition was the second greatest motivator factor
referenced. The work itself and responsibility followed as the third and fourth most
referenced events. Of all events, those identified as company policy and administration
events led to the greatest number of dissatisfied employees. Supervision was the second
greatest hygiene factor referenced.
In addition to these major results, a few other findings are worth discussing.
First, the growth factor was responsible for less than 10% of all events referenced as job
satisfying events. Growth accounted for an almost equivalent amount of job dissatisfj4ng
events. These results support findings from subsequent Herzberg studies where
possibility for growth was neither fidly a job satisfier nor job dissatisfier. In addition,
several motivator factors were responsible for extreme job dissatisfaction in amounts
similar to many of the hygiene factors. These were mainly achievement, recognition, and
the work itself. Hygiene factors with similar amounts of responses were relationship with
supervisor, work conditions, and salary. One last note on these results is the relatively
low number ofjob satisfying events related to hygiene factors.
Kovach conducts ongoing research in the area of employee motivation. His work
over the past 20 years includes motivation assessments of more than 25 organizations
(Kovach, 1995). In these assessments, he administers an employee survey to identifl the
top ranking 'job reward' factors of employees. In three recent surveys, Kovach identifies
the desire for interesting work as the number one ranked job reward factor.
Kovach further breaks down the results in a variety of comparisons including age
preferences. His results suggest that younger workers (under age 30) are also highly
concerned with good wages, job security, promotion, and growth. He hypothesizes that
this is due to their recent entrance into the job market, a life stage affect. They have not
yet fulfilled their basic needs (Maslow's lower level needs). Further results suggest that
with age come basic need fulfilment and focus shifts to a desire for interesting work.
This supports Herzberg's theories that as organizations sufficiently meet the hygiene
needs of employees, focus shifts to motivator factors including the work itself. Kovach
also finds that workers over the age of 50 are concerned with 'sympathetic help with
personal problems', 'good working conditions', and 'personal loyalty to employees'
(Kovach, 1995). Kovach's results lend support to the lifecycle perspective. Further
discussion on this topic follows in the 'Age in the Workforce' section of this report.
Kovach's article reveals support of his findings through work conducted by
Jurgensen. Jurgensen's research also reveals that as age increases, focus shifts fiom
hygiene factors such as job security to the work itself (Jurgensen, 1978). In addition,
Jurgensen's work finds a link between higher educated employees and importance of the
work itself. He posits that employees with higher levels of education find the work itself
a more important motivator factor than employees with lower levels of education. His
research suggests that as education levels rise, the importance of the work itself will rise.
This becomes important for organizations today as education levels are rising year over
year in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2001).
2.4 Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a relatively new concept. One definition of employee
engagement is the state when employees "bring discretionary effort to work, in the form
of extra time, brainpower, and energy" (Towers Perrin, 2003, p. 1). Another definition of
employee engagement is "the state in which individuals are emotionally and intellectually
committed to the organization or group" (Hewitt Associates, 2004, p.2). Employee
engagement links closely to intrinsic motivation (see Section 2.2). Individuals with high
levels of intrinsic motivation tend to be highly engaged in their work (Frank, Finnegan,
and Taylor, 2004).
Hewitt Associates, a human resources outsourcing and consulting firm, find that
high levels of employee engagement result in greater organizational performance. In
their studies of hundreds of companies worldwide, they reveal that companies with high
levels of employee engagement have superior business results compared to companies
with lower levels of employee engagement. A recent study by Hewitt Associates of
double-digit growth companies1 shows that engagement levels in these companies are
21% higher than engagement levels in single-digit growth companies2 (Hewitt
Associates, 2004).
Other studies on employee engagement show favourable results for companies
with highly engaged employees. One study on employee engagement showed that
companies with high employee engagement gained 3.74% operating margin and 2.06%
' Double-digit growth companies are publicly traded companies with CAGR five-year average growth in profitability of 10% or greater and meet the double-digit growth target in at least 3 of the past 5 years. Defined in "Double-Digit Growth: How Great Companies Achieve it No Matter What" ,Treacy, M. cited in Hewitt, 2004. * Single-digit growth companies are publicly traded companies with CAGR five-year average growth in profitability of less than 10%. Defined in Treacy, M. cited in Hewitt, 2004.
net profit margin over a three-year period. Companies in this study with low levels of
employee engagement were down 2.01% operating margin and 1.38% in net profit
margin over the same period (ISR, 2003). A 2004 study of the best employers in Europe
shows that companies with the highest levels of engagement have 23% less voluntary
turnover than others (Hewitt Associates, 2004). A firm also benefits from high levels of
employee engagement with high levels of customer engagement (willingness to repeat
purchases and recommend a firm to friends) (Bates, 2004).
There is heightened interest in the topic of employee engagement at present for a
number of reasons. Engaged employees are highly motivated and perform above
expectations. In today's lean organizations seeking to gain competitive advantage, all
employees must be high performing. Recent studies, however, show that there are more
disengaged employees than there are engaged employees in today's companies. Some
predict that the US economy runs at 30% efficiency due to disengaged workers (Bates,
2004). Others estimate that 75% of the workforce is disengaged (Loehr & Groppel,
2004). Frank et al. cite another study that found only 17% of the workforce is highly
engaged (Frank et al., 2004). These results strongly suggest the large potential for
improved performance possible by increasing the numbers of engaged employees in
organizations.
Hewitt Associates developed an employee engagement model based on research
conducted over the past ten years. Their research includes data gathered from more than
four million employees (Hewitt Associates, 2004). Figure 2 shows Hewitt's Engagement
Model including six categories of engagement drivers.
Figure 2: Hewitt Engagement Model
Hewitt Engagement Model
Quality of Life Phys icd WOI k
Work Environment Intrinsic Mot~ation
Source: Copyright O 2003-2004, Hewitt Associates LLC. By permission.
Hewitt's Engagement Model identifies the six engagement drivers as quality of
life, work, people, opportunities, compensation, and procedures. Each category breaks
down into subcomponents that allow organizations to focus specifically on areas that
drive engagement of their employees. Hewitt7s engagement drivers map closely to
Herzberg's motivator and hygiene factors. Hewitt Associates suggest that organizations
can improve the engagement of their employees, and thereby the performance of their
organizations, by targeting activities on the engagement drivers.
Recent Hewitt studies suggest specific engagement drivers with greater
importance than others. Hewitt's 'Best Employers in Europe' study conducted in 2004
assessed engagement levels in 200 companies (Hewitt Associates, 2004). Approximately
27,000 employees completed engagement questionnaires to assess engagement levels in
these companies. The results show that improvements to engagement would result most
from an increased focus on career and development opportunities as well as non-financial
recognition and improvements in company policies.
Hewitt Associates use specific measures to assess levels of employee
engagement. Their research says that engaged employees will 'stay' with the
organization, 'say' positive things about the organization, and 'strive' beyond
expectations for the organization (Hewitt Associates, 2004). Their assessment of a
company's level of employee engagement revolves around these three themes.
Employees answer questions about their thoughts and behaviours on these themes to
determine their level of engagement (see Appendix A for a sample of Hewitt's
Engagement Questions). A company's overall engagement score derives from the
number of employees with positive responses to these questions.
2.5 Summary: Highly Motivated and Engaged Employees Positively Impact Firm Performance
The research cited in this section highlights the importance of people management
in organizations. It also concludes that firms with highly motivated and engaged
employees will perform better than other firms with lesser-motivated or disengaged
employees. To capitalize on the potential of employees, firms must focus on specific
drivers of motivation and engagement. If firms are able to create the right combination of
HRM practices to effectively motivate and engage the employee base, they may just
achieve the ultimate competitive advantage in their people.
3. CANADIAN AGE COHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic changes in Canada over the next twenty years will have a
significant impact on Canadian companies. The age composition of the workforce is
shifting. A large majority of the current workforce will retire. Younger, replacement
workers are required to take their places. The resulting workforce will look
proportionately different by age distribution when this shift occurs. This in turn will have
effects on organizational management (Foot, 1998).
3.1 Total Canadian Workforce by Age
The Canadian workforce totalled 17.2 million in 2004 (Statistics Canada, 2004).
Figure 3 shows a breakdown of the workforce by age. Seventeen percent of the
workforce is currently under the age of twenty-four. The majority of the workforce is
between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four at forty-seven percent. The oldest
workers today are the forty-five and up group at thirty-six percent of the total workforce.
Figure 3: 2004 Canadian Labour Force as a Proportion of the Total By Age
Age
E 15-19
20-24
25-34
0 35-44
45-54
55-64 65 plus
Data Source: Labour Characteristics by Age and Sex, Statistics Canada, 2004
3.2 Canadian Workforce by Generational Cohort
Five generational cohorts will comprise Canada's workforce over the next twenty
years (Foot, 1998). The next section of this report introduces each of these cohorts and
discusses the significance of them as entities. Over the next twenty years, the proportion
of each generational cohort of working age will shift. Figure 4 shows a prediction of how
these shifts will play out in the workforce.
Figure 4: Canadian Labour Force Projections: Cohort Comparison
2004 2011 2016 2021
Year
Cohort Group
World War II
Baby Boom
Baby Bust
Baby-Boom Echo
Mllennium Busters
Data Source: Population projections for 200 1,2006,20 1 1,20 16,202 1 and 2026, at July 1 (200 1,2006), Statistics Canada
Figure 2 shows how the workforce in Canada will look over the next twenty
years. For the next five years, Baby Boomers will retain a large portion of their positions
within the workforce. Beyond five years, however, they begin declining. The World
War I1 cohort will be retired by 201 1 entirely. The Baby Bust cohort is participating
fully in today's workforce and will continue for the next twenty years. The Baby-Boom
Echo cohort is just now entering the workforce. They will not be fully participating until
201 6. Millennium Busters begin entering the workforce in 201 6. They reach full
participation in the year 2026.
Figure 3 shows a different view of Canadian Labour Force projections. Baby
Boomers continue to outnumber all other cohorts in the workforce for the next ten years.
In this chart, we see that in 2016 the workforce will have an equal distribution of Baby
Boomers, Baby-Boom Echo and Baby Bust cohorts. The Baby-Boom Echo and Baby
Bust cohorts make up the majority of the workforce with almost equal participation after
2016. The Millennium Busters rise in number between 201 1 and 2026. In 2026, the
Canadian workforce again compiises an almost equal distribution of three cohorts: Baby
Bust, Baby-Boom Echo and Millennium Busters.
Figure 5: Canadian Labour Force Projection Trends
201 1 201 6
Year
Cohort Group
+- Millennium Busters
+ Baby-Boom Echo
+ Baby Bust
-c Baby Boom
X World War II
Data Source: Population projections for 200 1,2006,20 1 l ,20 16,202 1 and 2026, at July 1 (200 1,2006), Statistics Canada
3.3 Summary: Changing Workforce Age Demographics Will Impact Canadian Firms in the Near Future
Canada's workforce age demographics are shifting. Over the next twenty years,
the distribution of generational cohorts in the workplace will comprise members of four
different generational cohorts. This will have implications for organizations in building
high performance in multigenerational workgroups. The following section discusses
generational cohort theory, identifies each generational cohort, and discusses the
differences between cohorts in an attempt to understand the implications of generational
cohorts on Canadian organizations.
4. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT GENERATIONAL COHORTS
The following is a review of generational studies conducted to date.
Demographers, social science researchers, and writers all propose theories of generational
cohort membership and characteristics. There is general agreement on the basic theory
behind cohort membership; however, wide differences exist in the belief of how
generational cohort membership manifests itself in individual behaviour. The following
review identifies generational cohort theory, presents both the demographic and social
science views on cohort membership, defines Canadian cohorts, and provides a summary
of both perceived and proven differences between cohorts. A brief discussion on age
factors in the workplace concludes this section.
4.1 An Introduction to Generational Cohort Theory
William Strauss and Neil Howe conduct research on America's generational
cohorts. Their work includes historical reviews and future predictions. They define a
generational cohort as bbpeople whose common location in history lends them a collective
persona" (Strauss and Howe, 2000). The significance implied in this definition is that
collections of people growing up at the same period of time, share similarities.
Strauss and Howe introduce their generational cohort theory in their book
Generations (Strauss and Howe, 1991). They suggest that individuals born during a
certain period develop a 'peer personality' shaped by the events they share particularly
during their formative (pre-adult) years. Political, social and economic events and
attitudes during these years shape a common set of values, beliefs, expectations, and
behaviour that express themselves throughout an individual's lifetime. Parental views
also affect individuals of a particular generational cohort. Strauss and Howe found that
individual views toward government, education, conformity, materialism, religion, drugs,
alcohol, wealth, disparity, and self-esteem are in part a result of parents' efforts to
overcome problems they remember from their childhood. The 'peer personality' applies
for the majority of a generational cohort's membership though individual differences still
exist. Strauss and Howe found that these values, beliefs, expectations and behaviour
remain mainly unchanged throughout an individual's lifetime (Strauss and Howe, 199 1).
Sago uses generational cohort theory in discussions of generational cohorts in the
workplace. Sago says that individuals of a particular generational cohort have common
communication styles, viewpoints, outlooks, work habits, and expectations (Sago, 2001).
Members of the same generational cohort also feel more comfortable together and
understand each other better than those of different generational cohorts. Sago cites
research that shows generational cohort membership as an important predictor of
employee behaviour (Sago, 200 1). Differences in expectations and experiences affect
how members of a generational cohort react to situations in the workplace.
Based on these findings, it is necessary to pinpoint the specific values, beliefs,
expectations and behaviour common to each generational cohort in order to see how they
operate within the workforce. The next section identifies the generational cohorts
working in Canada today and in the near future.
4.2 Generational Cohort Definitions
There is significant debate around generational cohort borders and identity.
Demographers, social science researchers, and writers define generational cohorts
differently. Criteria used to identify the borders of a generational cohort vary mainly
between population trends, life cycles, and socialleconomic/political events. National
differences add further complexities as events and influences vary by country.
4.2.1 Demographic View
Demographers focus on population trends to identify generational cohorts.
Known demographers Torres-Gil and Foot identify generational cohorts based on
statistical facts. They consider birth and fertility rates, immigration, and population in
order to classify unique generational cohorts. According to their work, one generational
cohort ends and a new one begins when the number of births in a given year trends
downward. Demographers review the economic, social, and political events that occur in
a specific location (primarily by country) during the formative years of a cohort. The
goal of this type of work is to develop a generational cohort's common characteristics.
Foot's work takes a Canadian perspective on generational cohort membership.
He identifies five generational cohorts important in Canada's workforce today. These are
'World War 11' (born 1940 to 1946), 'The Baby Boom' (born 1947 to 1966), 'The Baby
Bust' (born 1967 to 1979), 'The Baby-Boom Echo' (born 1980 to 1995), and 'The
Millennium Busters' (born 1996 to today) (Foot, 1998). These cohorts are similar to
those identified by American demographer Fernando Torres-Gil (Torres-Gil, 1992).
A basic premise of Foot's work is that the size of a generational cohort matters.
According to Foot, a small cohort has benefits that a large cohort does not. He suggests
that small cohorts have less competition in school, the job market, and life in general than
large cohorts. This leads to a more successful cohort on the whole as life is relatively
easier. This in turn leads to a more optimistic attitude and less struggle. A large cohort,
however, has more power than a small cohort does as large numbers create greater
influence. An example of this is the large Baby Boomer cohort retirement phase. As
Baby Boomers come of retirement age, there will be increasing demands on healthcare,
insurance claims, and seniors' homes.
4.2.2 Social Science View
Strauss and Howe take a social science view of generational cohorts. Their
studies into American history reveal four cycles of generational cohorts evident for more
than 400 years. Based on their research into history they find these generational cohorts
of 'peer personalities' repeat in the same order throughout history (Strauss and Howe,
1991).
According to Strauss and Howe, one generational cohort is the length of a phase
of life. Their definition of life phases includes youth (age 0 to 21), rising adulthood (age
22 to 43), midlife (age 44 to 65), elder hood (age 66-87) (Strauss and Howe, 1991).
From this perspective, one generational cohort is approximately 20 years in length. They
suggest that during each life phase individuals play distinct social roles. Events occurring
at a specific time affect each social role differently.
Strauss and Howe identify each life phase social role (Strauss and Howe, 1991).
Dependence is the central role during youth. Activities during this life stage include
growing, learning, receiving protection, avoiding harm, learning values. Activity is the
central role during rising adulthood. Activities at this time include working, building
careers, starting families, serving institutions, and testing values. Leadership is the
central role during midlife. Activities include parenting, teaching, directing institutions,
and using values. In elder hood, stewardship is the central role. Supervising, mentoring,
giving, and teaching values are activities at this time.
A basic premise of Strauss and Howe's work is that experiences occurring during
youth and rising adulthood affect how that cohort will behave in future situations. An
example is that how parents raise their children affects how their children in turn raise
their children. Strauss and Howe suggest that alternating patterns of behaviour manifest
in a variety of categories. Generational cohorts shift in their views on "public action and
private introspection, secularism and spiritualism, cultural suffocation and liberation,
fragmentation and consensus, overprotective and under protective nurture of children"
(Strauss and Howe, 1991, p. 33).
Strauss and Howe propose four generational cohorts active in today's workforce.
They are the 'Silent' generation (born 1925 to l942), the 'Boomer' generation (born 1943
to 196O), 'Generation X' (born 196 1 to 198 I), and the 'Millennial' generation (born 1982
to approximately 2002). Each generational cohort has a distinct peer personality shaped
by the events and experiences they commonly share fiom their formative years. They
tend to share similar attitudes towards politics, lifestyle, religion, family life, institutions,
sex roles, and the future.
The four, cyclical 'peer personalities', according to Strauss and Howe, are the
Idealist Generation, the Reactive Generation, the Civic Generation, and the Adaptive
Generation. MacManus summarizes Strauss and Howe's definitions of these
generational cohorts in her book Young v. Old (MacManus, 1996). She states that the
Idealist Generation grows up during a time of prosperity; they inspire a spiritual
awakening, become egotistical adults, become moral in midlife, and visionary in elder
hood. Baby Boomers are the Idealist Generation. The next generational cohort is the
Reactive Generation. They grow up during a spiritual awakening as under protected
children, become risk takers and alienated adults, in midlife they are down-to-earth
during a period of crisis, and become respected, reclusive elders. This is Generation X.
The next two generational cohorts are the Civic Generation and the Adaptive
Generation. The Civic Generation is a cohort of protected children after a spiritual
awakening, overcoming a secular crisis as rising adults, becoming heroic, high achievers
in adulthood, building better institutions in midlife, and being highly involved elders in
the next spiritual awakening. This is the Millennia1 generation. The final generational
cohort is the Adaptive Generation. This group is a cohort of overprotected children
during a secular crisis. They become risk averse and conformist as rising adults. In
midlife, they are indecisive during a spiritual awakening. As elders, they hold influence
but less respect.
4.3 Workplace Cohorts Identified
Foot suggests that Canadian cohorts are unique when compared to those of other
nations. Similarities, however, exist with western, industrialized countries including the
United States, Australia, and New Zealand (Baby Boomers in particular) (Foot, 1998).
Nonetheless, the events and influences in Canada are distinctive. As a result, the
characteristics of Canadian cohorts are unique.
Foot identifies five generational cohorts that will work in Canada during the next
twenty years. Strauss and Howe describe four generational cohorts influential over the
next twenty years in the workforce. Individuals born between 1940 and 1990 make up
the working population of Canada in 2005. These individuals are between the ages of 15
and 65. The following figure shows a comparison of Foot's versus Strauss and Howe's
cohort definitions.
Figure 6: Cohort Definitions by Birth Year
itrauss & Howe
I - Foot
Baby Baby B m Millennium Bust Echo Busters
r
1970 1980
Birth Year
Data compiled from: Strauss and Howe, 199 1 ; Foot, 1998
Strauss, Howe, and Foot define cohorts similarly. Figure 6 shows the similarities
and differences in their cohort definitions. The Silent and World War I1 cohorts represent
the oldest workers in today's organizations. Strauss and Howe define Boomers as
starting earlier and ending earlier than Foot's Baby Boomer definition. Generation X as
defined by Strauss and Howe overlaps closely with Foot's Generation X subgroup within
the Baby Boomer cohort combined with the Baby Bust cohort. Millennials are roughly
equivalent to the Baby Boom Echo and Millennium Buster cohorts.
As similarities exist between American and Canadian cohorts, and Foot's cohort
definitions map closely to Strauss and Howe's cohort definitions, it is possible to
combine the work of both to identify key cohort characteristics. The following section
defines each cohort using Foot's definitions combined with Strauss and Howe's findings.
4.3.1 World War I1 / Silent Generation
Foot identifies this cohort as individuals born between 1940 and 1946. This
group numbered 2.2 million in Canada as of 1998 (Foot, 1998). Many were born to
parents who had been through World War I. All parents of this cohort also experienced
the hardships of the Depression years of the 1930's.
This cohort is small for several reasons. World War I and a major influenza
outbreak in the 1910's killed tens of thousands of people who would have had children
during this time. In addition, many men were away during the early 1940's fighting in
World War 11. The size of this cohort is small with fewer Canadians of childbearing age
either alive or in the country between 1940 and 1946.
It is perhaps surprising that there were any births during this time in history. Foot
suggests, however, that this generational cohort is the product of two key factors. The
first is the racing biological clocks of women and men that were unable to afford children
during the Depression years (making up for lost time). The second is the growing
Canadian economy during World War 11, a direct result of Canada's role as a large
supplier of military equipment. Members of Canada's population were running out of
time to have children, and they could now afford families.
The parents of this generational cohort have a strong effect on the values, beliefs,
expectations and behaviours of this cohort. They are said to be risk averse, minimalists
and prone to saving behaviours because of living through the war and depression years.
This also makes them want more for their children. These traits and values strongly
influenced the World War I1 cohort. Strauss and Howe describe this cohort as
dependable, hard working, conservative, loyal, and conformist. They also value security
and have a sense of duty (Strauss and Howe, 1991).
4.3.2 Baby Boomers
According to Foot, Baby Boomers in Canada are the cohort born between 1947
and 1966. Births in Canada during these years are the highest of any time since. Men
returned from World War I to make up for lost time. Canadian women of childbearing
age during this time averaged four children each (Foot, 1998). This was possible because
the Depression Baby cohort (born 1930 to 1939) benefited from a time of reconstruction
and prosperity after the war. Their population was lower than previous cohort
populations were during a period of economic prosperity. Fewer numbers shared greater
wealth. This enabled families the ability to afford larger families.
Immigrants to Canada also contributed to the Baby Boomer population. Canada's
immigration policies evolved and expanded during the 1940s and 1950s (Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, 2000). This brought large numbers of immigrants from around the
world. After a period of negligible immigration during the Depression years of the
1930's, the l94O's, 1950's and 1960's saw a spike in immigration as Canada sought to
build the post-war economy (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2000). As immigrants
tend to be young and generally of childbearing age (Foot, 1998), their children
contributed to Canada's Baby Boomer population during the 40s, 50s and 60s.
In total, there were 9.9 million Baby Boomers in Canada in 1998 (Foot, 1998).
Baby Boomers made up 32.4% of the population of Canada in this year. According to
Foot, the most important distinguishing factor for this cohort is their size. Baby Boomers
far outnumber all other cohorts today. This has significant implications for members of
this cohort and members of other cohorts.
Foot describes Generation X as a subgroup within the Baby Boomer cohort. They
were born in the last years of the boom in the early 1960s. The unique circumstances
facing this group are a result of the large numbers of Baby Boomers that came before
them and a depressed economy. When Generation X was ready to enter the workplace, it
was saturated. Earlier Baby Boomers were in positions they were not leaving. The
economic recession in the 1970's and early 1980's, added to difficulties in finding work.
Opportunities for promotion were also limited, as older Boomers held positions that were
more senior. Generation X became cynical because of these struggles. They look out for
themselves and lack trust in large institutions. Foot attributes much of their struggles to
their position at the tail end of a large generational cohort (Foot, 1998).
Baby Boomers lived through a number of world changing experiences as a
collective during their formative years. These include the Vietnam War, a booming
economy, drugs, sex and rock and roll as well as the women's liberation movement and
the human rights movements. In their adult years, they faced layoffs and downsizing. As
a result, some lost respect for authority and loyalty to institutions. Scepticism towards
employers has resulted in some of this cohort.
4.3.3 Generation X / The Baby Bust
Strauss and Howe define Generation X more broadly than does Foot. Using birth
years, Strauss and Howe's definition of Generation X is equivalent to Foot's Generation
X subgroup and Baby Bust cohort combined. Although this distinction exists, there are
many similarities between how each describe these 'peer personalities'.
Combined with Foot's description of Generation X above, Strauss and Howe
suggest further distinctions (Strauss and Howe, 199 1). They describe Generation X as
'latchkey' kids left to fend for themselves at young ages. They suggest that this
independence led to a cohort of strong problem solvers with a self-focus. Their formative
years were also fraught with family, financial, and societal insecurities as well as rapid
change. They entered the workforce during a time of economic recession, downsizing,
right sizing, and automation. This made work difficult to find. The former concept of
job security and lifelong employment that their parents expected was shattered. Loyalty
to oneself replaced loyalty to organizations. To survive, this cohort focuses on increasing
their marketability and knows change as a way of life.
Foot defines Baby Busters as those born between 1967 and 1979 in Canada.
According to the demographic view, the beginning of this cohort signals the end of the
Baby Boomer cohort in Canada as birth rates began falling. Foot suggests that this
decline happened for a few reasons (Foot 1998). First, the introduction of the birth
control pill in 1967 meant that women now had more control over their family size than
ever. Second, women were entering the workforce, getting educated, and joining the
women's liberation movement. They were choosing to have children later in life (or not
at all) and fewer in number.
The Baby Bust cohort totalled 5.6 million in 1998 in Canada (Foot, 1998). This
relatively smaller size gives them privileges not available to the Baby Boomers. For
example, there were fewer to compete with for university and job places. This expands
this cohort's ability to choose its future.
This cohort saw the beginnings of technology and increased diversity in the
population. They lived through high divorce rates of their parents, single parent homes,
and lower incomes as a result. They also saw their parents work hard in many cases
sacrificing family only to lose what they had worked for through downsizing. As a
result, this group emphasizes work less and family more. The early introduction to
technology makes this group technologically literate although they still remember life
without many of the technologies of today. High exposure to increased diversity in
ethnicity, alternate life styles, and new family units makes this group open to a wide
variety of differences in people.
4.3.4 The Baby-Boom Echo / Millennials / Millennium Busters
The Baby-Boom Echo cohort is the Canadian cohort born f?om 1980 to 1995.
Their parents are the Baby Boomers. They are part of smaller families where parents
chose to have children later in life. Parents of this generational cohort spend more
physical, intellectual, and emotional time with their children (Hill, 2002). They are
supportive parents that involve their children in everything (sports, activities, the arts
etc.). They are a large cohort in number totalling 6.5 million in 1998 in Canada (Foot,
1998).
Predictions suggest they will face similar circumstances to the Baby Boomer
cohort because of their large size (Foot, 1998). All will face strong competition for
school enrolment and jobs. Too few placements are available for such large numbers.
The older of this cohort will benefit from their position as first in line in securing
placements. The younger of this cohort will face fewer options, much like Generation X.
Foot suggests, however, that they will be better prepared for this, as their parents are the
original Generation X.
This group continues several of the characteristics noted above for the Baby Bust
cohort. Increases in diversity over time deepen this cohort's appreciation for differences
in others. This is the first cohort to experience their entire lives with technology. This
fact and expansions in technology over time make this cohort more technologically
skilfid than the previous cohort. The concept of job security is foreign to this group and
not expected. This cohort continues the view that lifelong employment with one
organization is not realistic or desirable. They seek to improve their own personal
marketability through learning and gaining experiences. They are also confident due to
an upbringing of extreme support. They are better educated than any other generational
cohort in history is.
Strauss and Howe discuss the 'Millennial' generational cohort in their book
Millennials Rising (Strauss and Howe, 2000). This recent work on the latest generational
cohort comes from two surveys (one of 'Millennial' students and one of their teachers),
Strauss and Howe's generational theory on 'peer personalities', internet research, pop
culture, magazine articles, and US statistics. They identify the Millennials as highly
optimistic, team players, accepting of authority, and rule abiding (Strauss and Howe,
2000). As the Civic Generation, Strauss and Howe predict the Millennials will become
high achievers that rebuild broken institutions (Strauss and Howe, 199 1). They have
strong feelings of civic order, traditional values, are family centric, and have a belief in
institutions.
Some key events during this cohort's formative years include the World Trade
Centre bombings, the introduction of the internet and wireless technologies, increased
exposure to drugs and violence, economic expansion and prosperity, and exposure to the
world through mass media. Technology will open new opportunities. Serious world
events will create a greater focus on family and work life balance.
The Millennium Busters are Foot's newest identified generational cohort born
between 1996 and 2010. This cohort has not yet completely defined. Their parents are of
the Baby-Buster generational cohort (a relatively smaller cohort). Foot predicts the size
of the Millennium Buster cohort to be small as their parents' cohort is small. They are
likely to continue many of the characteristics growing over previous cohorts. These
include appreciation for diversity, growing technological expertise, and focus on self-
advancement without reliance on organizations.
4.4 Generational Cohort Differences
The previous discussion introduced the most common generational cohorts as a
starting point in discussing generational cohort differences. Now this paper will discuss
the generational cohort differences with a specific focus on the workforce. The main
question is what differences, if any, exist between cohort groups that affect the work
environment.
Perceived generational cohort characteristics are rampant. General observations
and media portrayals of generational cohorts form the basis for many. Some
characteristics are also stereotypes. Table 1 shows general perceptions of specific cohort
characteristics. The information contained in this table comes from a variety of sources.
Table 1: Perceptions of Generational Cohort Characteristics
Communication Styles
Leadership Expectations
Workplace Expectations
Baby Boomers
Outspoken
Participative leadership Consensus Direction
Stability and security Prestige and social status Expectations of advancement Look for direction Reward loyalty Public recognition
Generation X, Baby Bust
Consume information rapidly Honest and direct
Freedom from micro- management Competent leaders, mentors, and coaches Ongoing performance feed back Clear direction
Learning and development opportunities Chance to exercise leadership Chance to use special skills Be involved in decision making Opportunity for advancement Variety in work assignments Fun environment Challenging work Work-life balance Reward performance Sense of community Quality of work life Fulfilling work Flexibility in work schedules -
Millennials, Baby Boom Echo
Direct Challenge and question Open minded Inclusive Like interaction Interested in the big picture Into networking
Freedom from micro- management Ongoing performance feedback Managers that listen Mentors and coaches Open and frequent communication Clear direction Good relationship Honesty and integrity Encouragement
Learning and development opportunities Fulfilling work Meaningful work Quality of work life Flexibility in work schedules Work-life balance Variety in work assignments Opportunity for advancement Reward performance Access to the latest technology Social responsibility Fun environment Expect quick promotion
Work Styles
Attitudes
Comfort with Technology
Acceptance of Change
Views on Authority
Loyalty
Baby Boomers
Driven work ethic Long term focus Process oriented Team oriented Relationship focused Wiling to sacrifice Risk averse
Idealists Optimistic Self absorbed Sense of entitlement Value seniority and experience Loyal Conform to rules
Mixed acceptance of technology
Resistant to change
Lack trust Lack credibility Question authority Lovelhate Respect authority
Loyal to employer
Generation X, Baby Bust
Work to live lndependent Entrepreneurial Self-reliant Multitasking Risk takers, Resourceful Slackers Results oriented
Realists Sceptical Accept gender and race diversity Want to be productive
Technically competent
comfortable with change Like mobility
Dislike hierarchy Unimpressed with authority
Free agents Loyal to their skills Loyal to individual managers
Millennials, Baby Boom Echo
Team players Like collaboration Prefer to work alone lndependent Entrepreneurial Slackers Sociable Self-policing Like interactive activities Multitasking
Short term focus Easily bored Responsible Efficient
Confident Optimistic Accept gender and race diversity Moral Impatient Dislike condescending managers Civic minded Value fairness
Technically strong
Accept change as a way of life Like new opportunities
Oblivious to authority
Free agents Loyal to their skills
Data compiled from: Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Sago, 2001; Solomon and Marmer, 1992; Hill, 2002; Sujansky, 2004; Kennedy, 1998; Shepard, 2004; Martin, 2005; Dwan, 2004; Krantz, 2005; Amry, 2003; Tulgan, 1996; Allen, 2004
The general perceptions highlighted in Table 1 may or may not represent reality.
Some perceptions are also contradictory. Perceptions of Millennials, for example,
include both team players and a preference to work alone. Some say Generation X is
lazy and others say they are productive. Individual differences may be a factor in why
perceptions can vary widely. Although individuals of a common cohort overall will
exhibit similar expectations, behaviours, and values, there will always be exceptions to
the rule.
With many perceived differences between generational cohorts, it is difficult to
assess which characteristics are bona fide and have a real impact on the workplace from
those that are stereotypes. Research conducted on generational cohort differences
provides insight into the realities of generational cohort differences. Table 2 compares
younger generational cohorts and older generational cohorts on key areas of management
importance including leadership and workplace expectations, work styles, attitudes about
work and life, comfort with technology, views on authority, and thoughts on loyalty.
Sago describes these categories of differences as key differences between generational
cohorts (Sago, 2001). Table 2 summarizes work conducted by a variety of researchers on
the topic of generational cohort differences.
As many cohort definitions exist, this table focuses primarily on the differences
between younger and older workers. Using Foot's definitions, younger workers are The
Baby Bust, The Baby-Boom Echo, and the Millennium Busters. Older workers are
World War I1 and Baby Boomers.
Table 2: Proven Differences in Generational Cohorts
Leadership Expectations
Workplace Expectations
Work Styles
Attitudes
Comfort with Technology
Views on Authority
-- -
Loyalty
Older Generational Cohort Workers
Professional leaders Integrity Empower people
Flexibility and recognition of getting older Retirement focus Aging parental care Expect promotions, titles, corner off ices Long term employment
Hard working
More accepting of traditional gender roles Work Centric Seek material gains
Find computers more complicated Mixed acceptance of technology
Question authority
Commitment to long-term employment high Commitment to individual managers low
- - - -
Younger Generational Cohort Workers
Want regular reinforcement Immediate feedback Knowledgeable Good communicators Good motivators Supportive, approachable, receptive, mentors Team focused
Freedom to do work as they wish Flexibility in employment Development opportunities to improve marketability Reward performance Autonomy Short term employment
Hard working
Greater equality in gender role perceptions Family Centric or Dual Centric (Work & Family combination)
Find computers less complicated
Sceptical of hierarchy Must earn respect (not a given by title)
Commitment to individual managers high Commitment to long-term employment low
Data compiled fiom: Families and Work Institute, 2004; Hu et al., 2004; Sago, 2001; Kupperschmidt, 2000
The studies cited in Table 2 suggest that generational cohort differences do
manifest in the work environment. Distinct characteristics seem to exist between older
generational cohorts and younger generational cohorts in comfort with technology, views
on loyalty, attitudes and values, work styles, leadership expectations, workplace
expectations, and views on authority. Table 1 reflects many of these findings as general
perceptions of generational cohort characteristics. In-depth studies, however, have yet to
prove many other perceptions.
The research does show a trend towards greater comfort with technology in
younger generational cohorts (Hu, Herrick and Hodgin, 2004). This is logical, as
younger generations have lived more of their lives with technology than older workers
have. With each generational cohort, technological shrewdness will improve. This has a
natural impact on the work environment. The Baby Bust / Generation X cohort saw the
beginnings of technology and now the newest generational cohorts (Baby Boom Echo /
Millennials / Millennium Busters) have never known life without technology.
Differences in loyalty also exist between generational cohorts (Hu et al., 2004;
Sago, 2001). Younger workers demonstrate greater loyalty to individual managers while
older workers exhibit greater loyalty to employers. The manager/employee relationship
is critical for organizations in retaining younger workers who are less inclined to be loyal
to employers. This again follows, as younger workers do not expect lifelong employment
with a single employer. Focus is now on individuals as free agents providing service to
organizations in exchange for experience and skills.
Studies also show differences in attitudes and values between generational cohorts
(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Sago, 2001; Families and Work Institute, 2004). The Families
and Work Institute study shows that older workers are more work centric than younger
workers (Families and Work Institute, 2004). They find that 22% of Boomers are work
centric compared to 12% of younger workers. More than 50% of younger workers are
family-centric as compared to 41% of Boomers. Hu et al. cites work conducted by
Wieck, Prydun, and Walsh in a recent article that supports these findings. Their work
found differences in worldfamily focus between younger and older workers (Hu et al.,
2004).
Differences in attitudes towards gender roles also exist between generational
cohorts. Younger fathers are now spending more time with their children than are older
fathers. This suggests a shift in family roles and a shift from work to family focus.
Younger people are also less observant of traditional gender roles than are older workers
(Families and Work Institute, 2004). This suggests greater acceptance of women in the
workplace and equity.
The Generation and Gender in the Workplace study conducted by the Families
and Work Institute also disproves the perception that younger workers are lazy (Families
and Work Institute, 2004). Their results show that there is no difference between the
numbers of hours worked by older workers and the numbers of hours worked by younger
workers. Both younger and older workers can be hard workers.
Studies also show that expectations of leaders differ by generational cohort. Hu et
al. summarize these findings conducted by Wieck, Prydun, and Walsh (Hu et al., 2004).
They found that older workers want professional leaders with integrity. They also want
leaders who empower people. Younger workers want leaders who are knowledgeable,
supportive, and approachable with good communication skills. Leaders should be
mentors, team players, and motivators that provide constant performance feedback in
order for younger workers to learn and grow. Hu et al. support these findings. They
found younger workers expect regular reinforcement and immediate feedback from their
leaders (Hu et al., 2004).
Older and younger workers also have some differing workplace expectations (Hu
et al., 2004; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Sago 200 1). In particular, younger workers expect
development opportunities, flexible employment, short-term employment, and rewards
based on performance. Older workers expect long-term employment, promotions and
status symbols, as well as age recognition. Employers need to understand these
expectations and differences when managing multigenerational teams.
Although the research listed above confirmed differences between generational
cohorts, other researchers have found more similarities than differences between
generations of employees. A study conducted by Jurkiewicz and Brown on motivators in
the public sector suggests that generational cohort differences are not significant
(Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998). They suggest that life stages are more important in
determining what motivates employees in the workplace than are generational cohort
differences.
Their study revealed how three cohorts (Matures or World War 11, Boomers, and
Gen Xers or Baby Bust and Baby-Boom Echo) ranked fifteen work-related motivational
factors. Similarities found among the cohorts included exercising leadership, high
prestige and social status, high salary, contributing to important decisions, opportunities
for advancement, stable and secure future, use of special abilities, variety in work
assignments, and working as part of a team (Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998). Jurkiewicz
and Brown found two main differences between younger (Gen Xer) and older (Matures
and Boomers) workers. The first is that younger workers rank 'chance to learn new
things' higher than older workers. The second is that older workers rank 'freedom fiom
supervision' higher than younger workers.
Studies on generational cohort differences in the workplace are inconclusive.
Some trends, such as increasing technological shrewdness, are more plausible than are
others. Further investigation is necessary to confirm the need for generational cohort
considerations in the workplace.
4.5 Age in the Workforce
It is necessary to distinguish between generational cohort characteristics and life
stage in managing a multigenerational team. As defined above, generational cohort
characteristics are a result of events and influences during the formative stages of an
individual's life. The beliefs, values, expectations and behaviours that develop as a result
remain stable over time. In other words, they are at play throughout an individual's
working life. Research suggests, however, that life stage plays an important role in
workplace motivation and performance (Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998; Kovach, 1995;
Jurgensen, 1978).
Jurkiewicz and Brown suggest that life stage affects employee work motivations
more so than do generational cohort differences (Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998). They
propose that workplace expectations and values change over different life stages for all
generational cohorts. All employees generally want to increase their levels of income,
responsibility, and influence (Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998). Kovach and Jurgensen also
suggest that individual motivation and needs change through different life stages
(Kovach, 1995; Jurgensen, 1978). As such, an employee's age or life stage seems to be
an important factor in motivating the workforce.
A collection of work conducted on life stage theory suggests that all individuals,
regardless of generational cohort, go through the same life stages (Erikson, 1997). Egri
and Ralston cite studies in their article that show with age, individuals become "more
collectivistic, conservative and self-transcendent while becoming less individualistic,
open to change, and self-enhancing" (Egri and Ralston, 2004, p. 21 1). This work
suggests that employers should consider how life stage affects employee needs,
expectations and motivations.
People also change what they want from their jobs over time and lifecycle.
Jurkiewicz and Brown cite research that says that throughout the course of a lifetime,
focus is first on career then family, back to career and then retirement (Jurkiewicz and
Brown, 1998). Young workers new to the job market are concerned with pay, job
security, growth and development, and interesting work (Kovach, 1995; Jurgensen,
1978). Middle-aged workers in childbearing years become family or dual familylwork
centric (Families and Work Institute, 2004). Older workers become concerned with
retirement, benefits, and job security with age (Kovach, 1995). It is important to consider
and distinguish between differences that result from different generational cohorts and
differences resulting fiom differences in age.
4.6 Summary: Some Generational Cohort Characteristics May Have Implications for the Workforce
Generational cohort theory suggests that individuals within the same cohort group
exhibit similar values, beliefs, expectations and behaviour. This section identified the
generational cohorts participating in the Canadian workforce over the next twenty years.
The review of generational cohort differences in the workplace suggests that differences
between generational cohorts exist to some degree. How these differences manifest in
the work environment should be a concern for today's organizations. The next section of
this paper introduces one company in particular that is facing a highly multigenerational
employee base. Their specific circumstances make the need for a highly motivated and
engaged workforce strong.
5. TELUS COMMUNICATIONS OVERVIEW
TELUS Communications is Canada's second largest telecommunication service
provider. Products and services offered include data, Internet Protocol, television, voice,
and wireless communications. Customers range from residential homeowners to national
companies. In 2004, TELUS revenues totalled $7.6 billion (TELUS Investment Profile,
2004).
5.1 Company History
TELUS has a long and unique history. Its beginnings go back to the 1880's when
the first Canadian telephone exchanges were established. At that time, multiple
independent telephone companies existed across Western Canada. In the early 1900's,
western Canadian governments purchased the independent telephone companies in their
areas. This established regional telephone providers as public utilities with monopolies
in their regions.
A number of changes affected BC TELECOM, AGT, and ED TEL's competitive
situation throughout the 1900's (TELUS' predecessors). As regulated monopolies, they
faced strict labour standards. In addition, regulations dictated business requirements
including a requirement to provide telephone services to rural areas and affordable
residential service (Winseck, 1995). In 1986, Alberta introduced competitive cellular
phone services to the industry. Deregulation ended regional monopolies in the early
1900's. This privatized the telecommunications industry in Canada and led to new
entrants (TELUS History, 2005). Although, TELUS is now a private organization with
shareholders, it is still highly regulated by the CRTC. This severely restricts TELUS'
strategic position in terms of pricing, service levels, and business focus.
Many technological advances influenced the telecommunications industry during
the 1900's. These included the introduction of long distance calls, touch-tone service, the
'91 1 ' system, the 'Centrex' system, digital switching units, cellular telephony, digital
cellular networks, internet, and multimedia service (TELUS History, 2005).
TELUS today is the amalgamation of BC TELECOM, Alberta's AGT and ED
TEL, Quebec Tel, Clearnet Communications Inc., PSINet, and various other
communications companies (TELUS History, 2005). These mergers and acquisitions
began in 1995 when TELUS (formerly known as AGT) acquired ED TEL from the City
of Edmonton. In 1999, TELUS merged with BC TELECOM. TELUS acquired Quebec
Tel and Clearnet Communications Inc. in 2000. TELUS today operates nation wide.
TELUS' product and service offerings have grown and changed significantly over
the last twenty years. Advancements in technology are the primary drivers of this
change. Significant opportunities became available through the introduction of internet
and wireless technologies. In addition, deregulation changed the nature of competition in
this industry. As a result, prices fell on many traditional services such as wire line
telephony. Low marginal costs of such services drove price wars between new entrants
and incumbents. Today the marginal returns on these services are almost negligible.
Emphasis shifted as a result from traditional services to higher margin opportunities such
as those offered by internet, data, and wireless technologies.
5.2 The Industry Today
The telecommunications industry in Canada today is more diversified than ever.
Companies no longer focus strictly on telephone services, but now offer a suite of
communications offerings. This suite includes wireless and landline telephony, internet
and data services, customized applications, television, and voice over internet protocol
(VoIP). Bundling of these services is shifting consumers and businesses away from using
multiple communications and entertainment suppliers. Instead, competition today
focuses on securing a consumer's entire portfolio of communication and entertainment
needs.
Several suppliers either currently offer or soon will offer this entire suite of
products and services to the Canadian market. The main players are TELUS, Bell
Canada, Rogers Cable, and Shaw Communications. Each company provides comparable
services. The cable companies have entered the internet and telephone services
marketplaces, while the telecommunications companies are entering the
televisionlentertainment marketplaces. All also provide wireless offerings. Each
company must try to differentiate themselves to consumers in order to gain market share.
Regulation and labour union situations greatly influence each competitor's position in the
market.
5.3 The Regulatory Environment
TELUS faces severe industry regulation from the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRTC regulates telephone rates, service
quality, and service availability among other things. The CRTC deregulated long
distance in 1992 requiring TELUS to provide their competitors with access to their
network (Austen, 2001). Then they gave TELUS competitors cheaper access to use
TELUS networks (Verburg, 2002). In 2005, the CRTC ruled that voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) would be subject to similar regulations as telephone service (Schick,
2005). This would include receiving pricing approvals fiom the CRTC and not operating
these services at a loss. This ruling would apply to the telephone carriers, but not the
cable companies or VoIP independent providers. TELUS' competitive position and
strategy is highly restricted by regulations. Some competitors are not subject to the same
regulatory restrictions as TELUS. As a result, these competitors operate fiom a more
favourable position. This makes survival and profitability particularly difficult for
TELUS.
5.4 TELUS' Labour Situation
TELUS has a long and arduous history with its union. Contract negotiations over
more than fifty years brought increased wages, benefits, and employee rights. This came
to an abrupt stop when in 1999 BC Tel merged with TELUS. Employees choose one
union out of the four present to represent them (Verburg, 2002). They selected BC Tel's
Telecommunication Workers Union (TWU). Negotiations began in 2000 to create a new
contract that would affect all TELUS unionized workers across Canada. This time,
however, the company was not willing to follow historical increases in the new contract.
Since 2000, TELUS union workers have been without a contract. Negotiations
between the company and union continue in 2005. The company asserts that the contract
needs extreme changes in order to enable TELUS to be competitive in today's
marketplace (as most competitors have more favourable labour situations). The union
asserts that workers deserve job security, wage increases, and the rights to all terms
5 3
gained in previous contracts. In July 2005, the TWU walked off the job in response to
TELUS' plans to implement terms of a new collective agreement (TELUS News
Releases, 2005). On October 10,2005, TELLJS and the TWU reached a tentative
agreement to end the work stoppage. The union membership, however, rejected the
agreement in a vote made final on October 30 (TELUS News Releases, 2005).
The current labour situation does not fare well for TELUS' employee relations.
Union member sentiment, however, is mixed. In Alberta, 52.6% of union workers were
crossing the picket lines as reported by Ernst and Young in an independent review of
TELUS' payroll (TELUS Labour Updates, 2005). While these employees support
TELUS, another group is strongly opposed to TELUS. The Courts granted a series of
injunctions to TELUS in an attempt to maintain operations by restricting picketing
activities (TELUS Labour Updates, 2005). Employee sentiment is decidedly mixed. The
company is currently divided.
5.5 Employee Base
TELUS today employs 19,000 people across Canada. Employees represent
members of all four generational cohorts as defined by Foot. Figure 7 shows an
approximate breakdown of TELUS' employee base cohort distribution. The majority of
TELUS employees are in the Baby Boom cohort (65%). World War I1 cohort members
total 7%. Younger workers (Baby Bust and Baby Boom Echo) total 28% of the total
workforce. The youngest identified cohort group (Millennium Busters) do not yet work
at TELUS.
Figure 7: TELUS Total Employee Breakdown by Cohort --
Baby Boom Echo WorM War II 7% 7%
Cohort Group
Baby Boom 65%
World War II
Baby Boom
Baby Bust
0 Baby Boom Echo
Data Source: TELUS Communications HR
Figure 8 shows the approximate breakdown of cohort distribution by employee
classification. Similar cohort distributions exist in both management and union employee
groups with Baby Boom employees comprising the majority of employees at 66% and
64% respectively. A slight difference exists in both the oldest (World War 11) and
youngest (Baby Boom Echo) cohort groups. The union employee group holds a
proportionately higher number of positions of these cohort groups than does the
management group.
Figure 8: TELUS Management vs. Union Employee Breakdown by Cohort
Management Breakdown Ullon h p l o y e e Breakdown
World War II
w Baby Boom
Baby Bust
Baby Boom
Baby Boom Echo VUorld War II 9% 8%
Baby Boom 66%
Baby Bust
Baby Boom 64%
w Baby Boom
Baby Bust
Baby Boom
Data Source: TELUS Communications HR
5.6 Summary: An Engaged and Motivation Workforce is Necessary to Gain Competitive Advantage at TELUS
TELUS faces a complex situation as an organization in today's Canadian
telecommunications market. The industry is highly competitive and dynamic.
Similarities between companies in product and service offerings in telecommunications
and television make competition tough. Firms once offering discrete products and
services are now competing head to head for the same customer base. CRTC regulations
make competition even more difficult for the telecornrnu~~ication providers as they are
disadvantaged as compared with other competitors. Varying labour situations also factor
strongly into whether or not a firm has competitive advantage or disadvantage in this
industry.
TELUS' unique situation makes competition particularly dificult. They must
comply with strict regulations affecting their cost base and profitability. They must also
work with a resolute union whose previous contract was far less company friendly than
contracts of competitors (Verburg, 2002).
6. THE IMPLICATIONS OF GENERATIONAL RESEARCH ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
This section discusses the implications of generational cohort research on
motivation and engagement factors. The question is whether differences between
generational cohorts affect employee motivation and employee engagement. A further
question is how to measure employee motivation and engagement for a multigenerational
workforce. Finally, the analysis focuses on TELUS' specific situation as it relates to
employee engagement in a multigenerational organization.
6.1 Motivation Theory Conclusions
Maslow and Herzberg's theories together suggest a specific path required by
organizations in order to achieve high performance. Taking Maslow's theory,
organizations must first ensure their employee's basic survival needs are satisfied. This
includes a focus on sufficient compensation, working conditions, medical benefits etc.
These are Herzberg's Hygiene Factors. Once met, employees can seek higher levels of
needs including self-esteem and self-actualization. At these levels, employees are most
likely to excel in their work. This in turn should lead to organizations meeting their goals
and objectives. Herzberg suggests that the highest levels ofjob satisfaction and
motivation come when individuals feel a sense of achievement and growth. This is
possible only when employees are at the higher levels of Maslow's needs hierarchy. As a
result, employers must satisfy the Hygiene factors to a sufficient level in order for
employees to be able to focus on the motivator factors.
Motivation-Hygiene Theory suggests that employer programs solely aimed at
satisfying Hygiene Factors have minimal effects on motivation (Herzberg, 2003). As
motivation is a key driver of employee performance, this implies that raising salaries,
improving working conditions, and changing policies will not alone lead to higher
individual performance. Instead, focusing on motivator factors will improve individual
performance. In particular, Herzberg's review of 12 studies shows that the most
important motivator factors in driving extreme satisfaction in employees are
achievement, recognition, the work itself, and responsibility (Herzberg, 2003).
The work itself comes forward in other studies as well as the most important
factor influencing employees. Kovach identifies the desire for interesting work as the
number one ranked job reward factor (Kovach, 1995). Jurgensen finds that the more
educated an individual is, the greater the importance of the work itself as a motivator
(Jurgensen, 1978). As the Canadian workforce is becoming more educated with each
generational cohort, one can believe that interesting work will continue to grow in
importance as a motivator factor.
From this evidence, it seems that employers should focus specific attention on key
motivator factors in order to drive organizational performance. These should include
achievement, recognition, interesting work, and responsibility.
6.2 Motivators and Engagement Drivers
Hewitt's model of employee engagement relates closely to Herzberg and
Maslow's work. The following table shows a comparison of the drivers of motivation
and engagement from all three sources.
Table 3: Motivation and Engagement Drivers
Physiological Needs
Safety Needs
Belongingness
Esteem
Self-Actualization
-- -
Herzberg
Security
Personal life
Working Conditions
Salary
Status
Company Policy & Administration
Relationship with subordinates, peers, supervisor
Supervision
Growth Advancement Responsibility Work Itself Recognition Achievement
Hewitt
Quality of Life - physical work environment, work life balance, safety
Compensation - pay, benefits
Procedures - policies, HR
People - co-workers, management, senior leadership
Work - intrinsic motivation, work tasks, resources
Opportunities - recognition, career opportunities
Data compiled from: Maslow, 1954; Herzberg, 2003; Hewitt, 2004
A comparison of Maslow, Herzberg, and Hewitt's motivation and engagement
drivers reveals many similarities. It is possible to differentiate hygiene factors fiom
motivator factors as seen in Table 3. Combining all three theories, one can say that
organizations that satisfl the hygiene factors sufficiently and focus on the motivator
factors will be most successful. Organizations that do not sufficiently satisfy the hygiene
factors but do satisfy the motivator factors will be less successful as hygiene factors can
act as barriers to motivated performance (Leach and Westbrook, 2000). Organizations
that satisfy the hygiene factors but not the motivator factors will have a less motivated,
lesser performing workforce. A lower performing workforce, in turn, leads to a lower
performing firm.
Hewitt's recent review of The Best Employers in Europe shows that
improvements to engagement would result most fi-om an increased focus on career and
development opportunities as well as non-financial recognition and improvements in
company policies (Hewitt, 2004). These categories again support the need to focus on
motivator factors in improving engagement. This study also highlights the importance of
opportunities for growth. From earlier studies, this one motivator factor can act as both a
satisfier and a dissatisfier. Based on work conducted by Kovach (1995), opportunities for
growth are more important for younger workers than for older workers. It is possible that
in organizations with a younger employee base, opportunities for growth could be a key
motivator. Based on this work, one can suggest that the most important motivators,
particularly for a young employee base, are achievement, recognition, interesting work,
responsibility, and opportunities for growth.
6.3 Engagement and Motivation Measures
As a highly motivated workforce leads to high performance, employee motivation
and engagement measures should assess the degree to which employees feel they
experience the key motivator factors. Measures should focus on sufficiently meeting the
hygiene factors and optimally meeting the motivator factors.
To assess employee feelings toward the motivator factors, organizations could ask
the following types of questions. Response options should use a Likert scale (a five-point
scale identifying the degree of agreement or disagreement).
To what degree do they feel a sense of achievement at work?
To what degree do they feel recognized at work?
To what degree do they find their work interesting?
To what degree do they feel accountable for their work?
To what degree do they feel they are growing and learning in their work?
To assess employee feelings toward the hygiene factors, questions could include:
Do they feel they are fairly paid?
Are company policies a significant problem in their day-to-day work?
Do they have sufficient tools to do their job?
Is their relationship with co-workers a concern?
Is their relationship with their manager a concern?
Is their work environment sufficiently comfortable?
Hewitt's measures of engagement do not fully capture the motivator factors.
Their focus on assessing employee responses to questions related to 'say', 'stay', and
'strive' suggest that employees with positive feelings towards the engagement drivers
will positively rate these three themes. Suggesting that these three themes accurately
determine employee feelings towards the motivator factors is arguable. Employers may
be wiser to look directly at employee responses to the motivator factors to assess
employee engagement and motivation than to look only at responses to 'say', 'stay', and
'strive' questions.
6.4 Generational Cohort Differences and Drivers of Motivation and Engagement
The generational cohort mix of employees in Canadian companies is changing.
Although the largest generational cohort in Canadian companies today is the Baby
Boomers, this will change significantly over the next 20 years. Younger workers become
the majority participants in the workforce by the year 201 1 with Baby Boomers declining
every year thereafter. This suggests implications for companies as older generations of
workers move out and younger generations of workers move in.
Different perceptions of generational cohort definitions and characteristics are
rampant. Common stereotypes also exist that cloud this topic. General research does
suggest that cohorts share similarities in values, beliefs, expectations, and behaviours.
Proven manifestations of these differences in the workplace, however, are fewer than
expected. Research studied for this report shows proven differences between
generational cohorts in comfort with technology, views on loyalty, attitudes and values,
leadership expectations, and workplace expectations. Other research, however, suggests
fewer differences between generational cohorts and greater differences between
individuals by life stage. Although many perceptions of generational cohort differences
persist, proven differences influencing the workplace are few.
Considering the few studies conducted to date that show differences between
generational cohorts, it is possible to draw some connections between this research and
employee engagement and motivation theories.
Table 4: Generational Cohort Differences and Drivers of Motivation and Engagement
I Engagement Drivers I Motivator & Hygiene Factors
Data compiled from: Hewitt, 2004; Herzberg, 2003; Table 2
Generational Cohort Differences
Comfort with technology
Views on loyalty
Attitudes and values
Leadership expectations
Workplace expectations
Table 4 highlights the main categories of generational cohort differences mapped
to their associated motivatorhygiene and engagement drivers. It is possible that
differences in comfort levels between generational cohorts with technology can influence
employee views on the work itself. Employees with a lesser degree of comfort with
technology (older generations) may find their work less satisfying, more frustrating, and
feel less achievement if their work requires them to use technology. This can negatively
affect their feelings of motivation and engagement. As today's work environment
requires most employees to use technology, this could lead to lesser engagement in older
generations of workers than in younger generations of workers.
Work Itself
J
J
Growth & Learning
J
J
Recognition
J
J
Relationship with supervisor
J
J
Quality of Life
J
Differences between generational cohorts also affect expectations of leaders.
Younger workers expect to have a close relationship with their manager. They also
expect regular performance feedback including recognition. Their leaders also need to be
mentors and coaches that enable younger workers to grow and develop. If leaders of
younger generations of workers do not meet these needs, younger workers may become
less motivated and engaged. Similarly, younger workers expect recognition for
performance and interesting work with opportunities to grow from the workplace. All of
these expectations have an impact on engagement and motivation.
Attitudes and values as well as views on loyalty also link to motivator and
engagement drivers. Younger generations of workers are dual work and family focused
while older generations of workers tend to be more work centric. Employers that do not
recognize these differences may see different levels of motivation and engagement
between employees of different generational cohorts given the same work environment.
Loyalty also links to the relationship an employee has with their supervisor. As younger
generations of workers tend to show greater loyalty towards individual managers than to
the organization, workers that do not have good relations with their supervisors may feel
less loyalty to the organization. This lessens engagement and motivation. It could
ultimately lead to termination of the employment contract by the employee if the
situation becomes dire.
Two of the engagement and motivator factors related to the generational cohort
differences are hygiene related. According to Herzberg's theory, insufficient fulfilment
of the hygiene factors will lead to dissatisfaction and could ultimately block the positive
impacts of the motivator factors (or even lead to termination of the employment contract
in extreme situations). The two hygiene factors with links to generational cohort
differences are relationship with supervisor and quality of life. Insufficient fulfilment of
these two areas could lead to disengaged and unmotivated employees depending on their
generational cohort. If these two areas become sufficiently dire, organizations may lose
employees. However, improving these areas will not alone lead to higher employee
performance.
Three engagement drivers related to generational cohort differences are motivator
factors. Generational cohort differences affect the importance of the work itself, growing
and learning, as well as recognition. Given these key drivers, employees in the same
environment may be either fully engaged or be fully disengaged. This stems from
potential generational cohort differences in comfort with technology as well as leadership
and workplace expectations. Focusing on the work itself, growing and learning, as well
as recognition, with concessions for different needs and expectations of generational
cohorts, may lead to greater motivation and engagement on the whole as well as high
performance (as these are motivator factors).
In light of the above discussion on employee motivation and engagement across
generational cohorts, measuring engagement and motivation according to Hewitt's model
may not yield accurate results. Hewitt's focus on measuring individual attitudes towards
the three themes of 'say', 'stay', and 'strive' may not hold true across generational
cohorts.
The 'stay' line of questioning is particularly concerning when considering
responses from various generational cohorts. As younger generations of employees are
less loyal to organizations than are older generations of employees, the results of the
'stay' question in Hewitt's study may be misleading in determining engagement levels of
younger generations. Younger generations may continue to consider all employment
options while at the same time being highly engaged in their current work situation
simply by virtue of their tendency towards short-term employment and goals of growth
and development. Older generations of workers on the other hand show a greater affinity
towards long-term employment and loyalty to the organization. Studies on increasing
age also suggest that older workers of any generational cohort are more focused on
retirement and minimizing change than are younger workers. For these reasons, older
workers may fully intend to stay with the organization although they may not be fully
motivated or engaged.
Building on Herzberg's motivator factors in measuring engagement, however,
may prove to be appropriate across all generational cohorts. In particular, a focus on the
work itself, recognition, and achievement (the highest-ranking motivator factors as
defined by Herzberg, Kovach, and Jurgensen across a wide variety of organizations,
position levels, and industries). In addition, including a focus on growth and
development will assess the degree to which organizations meet expectations of the
growing number of younger generations of workers.
6.5 The TELUS Communications Case
TELUS' unique situation in today's telecommunications industry requires fully
leveraging all employee resources. This requires TELUS to focus heavily on employee
engagement and consider generational differences. There are several reasons for TELUS
to do this. Reasons include:
Differentiation: Increasing numbers of competitors with similar product and service
offerings make it difficult for TELUS to differentiate on technology and superior
products alone. In addition, entry barriers once in place are no longer in existence.
People can be TELUS' source of competitive advantage.
CRTC Regulations: TELUS is at a disadvantage when compared to some
competitors due to the strict regulations with which they must comply. Some
competitors gain advantages over TELUS, as they are not subject to the same regulatory
compliance. TELUS must leverage its people to make up for this disadvantage.
Labour Situation: TELUS' recent union situation and work stoppage shows a
division within the company. Union employee focus is currently on hygiene factors as
opposed to motivator factors. They are concerned with job security, wages, benefits,
among other things. TELUS needs to shift this focus to the motivator factors that will
increase employee engagement. This will lead to high levels of performance within the
company.
Management Situation: Management engagement should also be a focus at TELUS.
During the work stoppage, managers are away fiom their regular careers working in
union positions. Many of these union jobs are tedious and mundane. Managers will
slowly become disengaged in these roles if TELUS does not continuously engage them.
High Rate of Retirement: TELUS will soon see large numbers of employees in the
Baby Boomer generation retire fiom the company. Due to the lower population of
younger workers, it is likely there will be a shortage of workers available to fill their
vacancies. TELUS must act now to retain and engage younger workers to ensure
workplace continuity and high levels of performance.
Generational Cohort Participation Mix: The proportion of younger generations will
continue to grow year over year at TELUS. This implies a need to focus on the needs
and expectations of younger generations as they will be the majority of the workforce
soon.
For all of these reasons, TELUS must look to yield results through differentiating
themselves on their employees. To do this effectively, however, TELUS will need each
employee performing to their highest capability. This in turn requires a highly motivated
and engaged team.
This may prove challenging over the next few years due to TELUS' recent labour
situation. The past five years without a union agreement suggests that employee
engagement and motivation, particularly in the union, may not be optimal. With union
employees focused on their own hygiene needs of job security and wages, it is unlikely
that they were all h l ly engaged and performing beyond expectations before the work
stoppage. Moving forward, when union employees return to work they will bring with
them feelings of mistrust and anger towards the company. It is imperative that TELUS
act to hl ly engage and motivate this group as quickly as possible upon their return.
Management employee motivation and engagement should also be a focus. These
employees put their own lives and careers on hold to perform union work during the
work stoppage. Their engagement and motivation should be an ongoing concern for
TELUS leaders.
TELUS' employee base closely reflects the realities in the Canadian workforce as
a whole as it relates to generational cohort membership. With the majority of TELUS'
workforce over the age of thirty-eight (72%), retirement during the next ten to twenty
years will significantly change the age demographic in the company. Based on Canadian
statistical trends and projections, TELUS' employee base will look significantly different
by 201 1 with younger generations of workers in the majority. This requires HRM and
leadership concessions for the different needs and expectations of younger generations if
TELUS can expect to yield high performance results.
6.6 Summary: TELUS Should Consider Generational Differences In Light of Employee Engagement and Motivation
This section discussed the implications of generational cohort research on
employee engagement and motivation. It proposed measures of employee engagement
and motivation for a multigenerational organization. These measures focus on assessing
levels of the key motivator factors of achievement, recognition, interesting work,
responsibility, and opportunities for growth. This section also highlighted the need for
TELUS to leverage its people as a means of achieving competitive advantage in the
telecommunications industry. Achieving high levels of engagement in the company at
this time and in the near hture will be a challenge. This heightens the importance of
specific focus on employee engagement and motivation in this company.
The next section proposes alternative ways of utilizing this analysis in measuring
employee engagement at TELUS.
7. ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF CONCEPTUALIZING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AT TELUS
There are a few different ways of thinking about how to measure employee
engagement at TELUS. We know that the generational cohort membership distribution
in the Canadian workforce will change significantly in the next twenty years. A new
generational cohort mix will exist by 201 1. Research shows several key drivers of
engagement and motivation. Measuring employee levels of satisfaction with these
drivers, however, vary. In addition, some research suggests that differences between
expectations and needs of generational cohorts can influence these measures. The
following alternatives are possible for measuring employee engagement and motivation
in the work environment.
1 : Ignore generational cohort differences and adopt the Hewitt model of
engagement and measurement. Generational cohort differences in the workplace are
inconclusive. As such, making generational cohort concessions in HR practices may not
yield results. Hewitt's Employee Engagement model and measures result from multiple
studies and closely map to Herzberg's motivator and hygiene factors proven to influence
employee motivation and satisfaction. This alternative measures engagement based on
the three themes of 'stay', 'say' and 'strive'. Employees respond to outcome questions
on these themes. The total number of positive responses to these questions determines
TELUS' engagement score.
2. Ignore generational cohort differences and focus on the Motivator Factors in
HR practices and measurement of engagement. As stated above, generational cohort
differences in the workplace are inconclusive. Making generational cohort concessions
in HR practices may not yield results. Focus on the Motivator Factors proves to lead to
highly motivated employees and high organizational performance. Through multiple
studies on the impacts of the Motivator Factors, employees of all categories (age,
position, industry) consistently rank the motivator factors as most important in building
high levels of motivation and job satisfaction. Even Hewitt's work on employee
engagement ranks these factors among their drivers of engagement.
This alternative focuses HR programs and measures of employee motivation and
engagement specifically on the motivator factors most important in driving performance:
achievement, recognition, the work itself, and responsibility. Measures of employee
motivation and engagement in this alternative would focus questions on the degree to
which employees feel positively about the motivator factors. This alternative would also
seek to assess employee feelings towards the hygiene factors. These questions would
look for employee responses that rate the hygiene factors as sufficiently met by the
organization.
3. Utilize proven generational cohort differences in conjunction with a focus on
the Motivator Factors. Focus human resource programs and measures of employee
motivation and engagement specifically on the motivator factors most important in
driving performance across generational cohorts: achievement, recognition, the work
itself, responsibility, and growth and development. Consider employee differences by
generational cohort in employee feelings towards comfort with technology, views on
loyalty, attitudes and values, leadership expectations, and workplace expectations.
Measure employee motivation and engagement using questions focused on the
motivator and hygiene factors. Measure the degree to which employees feel positively
about the motivator factors of achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility,
and growth and development. In addition, seek to assess employee feelings towards the
hygiene factors. These questions would look for employee responses that rate the
hygiene factors as sufficiently met by the organization.
Segregate employee responses by generational cohort. Consider the differences
between generational cohort responses to questions on the work itself, growth and
learning, recognition, relationship with supervisor, and quality of life. Review the
findings fiom Table 4 to determine those factors most important for both younger
generational cohorts and older generational cohorts. Assess employee responses by
generational cohort to determine engagement levels by measuring the number of positive
responses to the most pertinent questions for each cohort group.
Look for areas of low scores for individual generational cohorts to determine
areas requiring immediate attention. Target HR and management practices on the areas
identified to improve employee engagement by generational cohort.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TELUS ENGAGEMENT AND MEASUREMENT
TELUS' position in the telecommunications industry as well as their changing
age demographic requires careful consideration in order to drive maximum performance
through employees. It is crucial for TELUS to leverage their employee base with highly
motivated and engaged team members. This will be particularly challenging for TELUS
in the near future due to recent labour issues. Low-level needs ofjob security and wages
are presently the focus of most union employees. TELUS needs to sufficiently satisfy
these needs in order for employees to shift their attention to the higher-level needs
associated with the motivator factors. TELUS must do this quickly to regain momentum
in the telecommunications industry.
Due to TELUS' multigenerational team and union membership, this report
recommends that TELUS consider measuring employee engagement in line with
alternative number three. The participation of various generational cohorts of TELUS
team members over the next twenty years will be diverse. They should not ignore
possible differences between generational cohorts although differences are not fully
conclusive. The presence of a strong union mentality means that employees look for
longevity in employment. Their employment contract provides far superior terms when
compared to employees of non-unionized organizations with similar job descriptions. As
such, TELUS union members are unlikely to leave TELUS. Their responses to questions
about staying or leaving will not appropriately reflect their levels of engagement.
By considering employee engagement using the motivator factors in light of
generational differences, TELUS should achieve the best possible results from its
employees. Younger generations will become increasingly important to TELUS' success
in the near future. Meeting their specific needs and expectations is a means of retaining
these employees and enabling them to achieve high levels of performance. Considering
older generations of workers will ensure they achieve their highest levels of potential
before retirement. By focusing on the key motivator factors of achievement, recognition,
the work itself, responsibility, and growth and development, TELUS can channel its
efforts into the most influential factors in driving high levels of employee performance.
If TELUS focuses its attention on HR and management practices in line with the
motivator factors in light of generational differences, they may achieve competitive
advantage through their people.
The next section discusses specific ideas for focusing HR and management
practices on the motivator factors. In particular, this section focuses heavily on the work
itself.
9. TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING WORKPLACE MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Work content itself is central to motivation, job satisfaction, and employee
engagement. It contributes significantly to achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and growth (Herzberg's motivator factors). As such, organizations should
pay careful attention to job design in order to influence positive employee feelings
towards their work.
Two concepts are particularly relevant in designing jobs that fulfil employee
needs. These are job enlargement and vertical job loading.
9.1 Job Characteristics Model
Hackman & Oldham's Job Characteristics Model provides a framework for
considering job design. It identifies five core job dimensions said to induce three critical
psychological states that in turn lead to four highly desirable personal and work outcomes
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Work outcomes include high quality work performance
and low absenteeism and turnover. Organizations can consider their jobs in light of this
model to determine whether opportunity for improvement in job design exists. Changes
to job design in line with the model can drive improved firm performance.
Figure 9 shows Hackman and Oldham's Job Characteristics Model of Work
Motivation. The model identifies five core job dimensions linked to personal and work
outcomes including internal work motivation, job satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, and
quality of performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The core job dimensions are skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback on job performance.
These dimensions lead to three critical psychological states including meaningfulness of
the work, responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of work results. When
employees experience the psychological states, they are most likely to achieve the four
identified personal and work outcomes.
1 Skill Variety 7
Figure 9: Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation
Experienced Task Identity Meaningfulness of the
}-*Work
Core Job Dimensions
Task Significance
Autonomy ,Experienced Responsibility for Outcomes of the Work
,
High Internal Work Motivation
High Quality Work Performance
Critical Psychological States
High Satisfaction With the Work
Personal and Work Outcomes
Low Absenteeism and Turnover
?
Feedback Knowledge of the Actual Results of the Work Activities
Employee Growth Need Strength
Source: Reprinted fiom Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol 16, Richard J. Hackman and Greg R. Oldham, Motivation Through the Design of Work - Test of a Theory, pg 250-279, Copyright (1976), with permission from Elsevier.
Hackman and Oldham show that skill variety, task identity, and task significance
contribute to an individual experiencing their work as meaningful. High levels of skill
variety exist when the job includes different activities that use that individual's specific
skills and talents. This includes challenging work that enables the individual to stretch
their skills and abilities. High levels of task identity exist when the job enables the
employee to complete a complete piece of work. This means seeing a task from
beginning to end with a visible result. High levels of task significance exist when the
employee feels that they have an impact on other people or the greater good. This
includes line of sight to the end goal, which they believe to be desirable.
Autonomy is the main contributor to individuals experiencing the psychological
state of responsibility for outcomes. Hackman and Oldharn define autonomy as "the
degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in
carrying it out" (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, p. 258). Younger generational cohorts
highlight freedom to complete work to their own discretion as a workplace expectation.
Feedback is the core job dimension influencing the psychological state of
knowledge of results. Hackman and Oldham suggest that individuals need to receive
clear and direct feedback on their performance to induce this state. Performance
feedback is also a stated leadership expectation for the younger generational cohorts of
employees.
Hackman and Oldham suggest that when jobs optimally meet all core job
dimensions they will provide workers with the highest level of motivation possible. If it
is not possible to meet all core job dimensions, however, they suggest that at least one of
the core dimensions leading to meaningfulness needs to be in place in combination with a
high degree of autonomy and feedback. If a job ranks low on any one of either
autonomy, feedback, or all dimensions related to meaningfulness, a job will create
negligible motivation in the employee.
The Job Characteristics Model provides a simple yet proven way to review job
design. Organizations should look to develop high degrees on the core job dimensions to
obtain high levels of performance, absenteeism, and turnover.
9.2 Vertical Job Loading
Herzberg provides insight into the concept of vertical job loading as a form ofjob
enlargement in a recent article (Herzberg, 2003). Vertical job loading seeks to increase
the motivator factors present in individual jobs, thereby increasing levels of motivation
and firm performance. Enlargement through vertical job loading should not be confbsed
with enlargement attempts through horizontal job loading. Horizontal job loading
includes changes including increasing the amount of production expected, adding
meaningless tasks to the job, rotating assignments between meaningless jobs, and
removing the most difficult parts of a job to accomplish more of the less difficult parts of
the job.
Table 5 shows seven principles identified by Herzberg as vertical job loading
techniques. This table associates each principle with the motivator factor(s) it influences.
Table 5: Vertical Job Loading Recommendations
Data Source: Herzberg, 2003
Organizations should consider the extent to which they can incorporate the seven
principles into their job design. Vertical job loading can lead to increased levels of
motivator factors inherent in jobs. This in turn will lead to greater engagement and
motivation in the employee base, which will ultimately improve firm performance.
10. CONCLUSION
This report considered the impact of multigenerational cohort membership in
organizations on employee engagement, motivation, and firm performance. The findings
show some evidence that individuals of diverse generational cohorts have different needs,
expectations, values, beliefs, and behaviours when it comes to the workplace. In
addition, research suggests specific organizational requirements beneficial to achieving a
high performing, engaged, and motivated team. This study proposes that if organizations
consider generational cohort differences in light of known drivers of engagement and
motivation, they can develop and implement leadership and human resource practices
that will improve firm performance.
Current knowledge of human resource management is comprehensive; however,
studies of generational cohort differences in the workplace are not. Further research on
this topic should benefit organizations. Leaders in today's organizations are
predominantly of the Baby Boomer generation. Their leadership styles and management
practices arguably reflect biases of their generation. To engage and motivate younger
generations, leaders need to understand the differences in order to alter their behaviour
appropriately. Over the next twenty years, the allocation of generational cohorts within
the workforce will change significantly. This new distribution will have implications for
all organizations with multigenerational team members. Organizations should consider
how multigenerational team member differences affect employee engagement,
motivation, and perfonnance.
Future research on the topic of generational differences should pay careful
attention to legitimate generational differences as opposed to life stage differences or
perceived differences. Few studies exist on the impacts of generational differences in the
workplace. It is difficult to differentiate whether differences between employees of
diverse age groups are due to generational cohort membership or life stages. In addition,
perceptions and stereotypes of generational cohort characteristics cloud reality. Future
studies of this topic should test common perceptions. Greater knowledge on generational
cohort differences will help today's organizations better understand the real implications
of multigenerational team member participation on employee engagement, motivation,
and firm performance.
Implementing changes to leadership and human resource practices to address
generational differences may be challenging. Leaders must see past their own
generational biases and preferences when dealing with employees of diverse generations.
To do this successfully, they must understand and accept that differences exist between
generations of employees. This may prove to be challenging. Human resource
practitioners must educate leaders and employees of the unique needs of different
individuals. They must also create flexible programs and practices that allow for
different requirements of individuals. These should include flexible performance
management, recognition, compensation, reciuitment, and benefits programs.
APPENDIX: HEWITT ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
The following is a sample of questions asked in Hewitt's Engagement Questionnaire to assess the level of employee engagement in a firm. These are a compilation of questions from Hewitt's Best Employers in Europe 2004 Study Findings and Hewitt's Research Brief: Employee Engagement Higher at Double-Digit Growth Companies.
1. There are good opportunities for me to develop skills necessary to do a different job
The organization provides training to help me build skills that are valuable to me
My performance has a significant impact on my pay
Overall, my benefit plans meet my (and my family's) needs well
We have valuable benefits not typically available at other companies
I am proud to tell others I am part of this company
Given the opportunity, I would recommend our products/services to customers
I feel our products/services provide real valuehenefits to our customers
I think this company is an exceptional place to work
10. I feel I can be myself around here
1 1. I see trust and mutual respect in the workforce
12. I would not hesitate to recommend this company to a fiend seeking employment
13. There are sufficient opportunities to obtain skills necessary to assume greater responsibility
14. There are sufficient opportunities to improve my skills in my current job
15. I know what skills I need to focus on to develop fkther
16. My manager provides the support I need to meet my career goals
REFERENCES
Allen, P. (2004). Welcoming Y. Benefits Canada, 28(9), 5 1 -53.
Arnry, S. (2003, June 18). Age factor in workplace harmony. New Straits Times (Malaysia), Retrieved July 27,2005, from the Business Source Premier database.
Austen, I. (2001). That familiar ring. Canadian Business, 74(4), 37.
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44.
Beswick, D. (2002). Management implications of the interaction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards. Retrieved November 1,2005 from http://www.beswick.info/psychres/management.htm.
Brown, M. M. (2002). An exploratory study of job satisfaction and work motivation of a select group of information technology consultants in the Delaware valley. (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College (Delaware)).
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2000). Forging our legacy: Canadian citizenship and immigration, 1900-1 977. Retrieved October 2,2005 from http://www.cic.gc.ca~englisWdepartment/legacylchap-Sb.html.
Dwan, S. (2004). From one generation to the next. NZ Business, 18(1), 40-40.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, l5(2), 2 10-220.
Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
Families and Work Institute. (2004). Generation & gender in the workplace. Retrieved October 15,2005 from h t tp : / / f ami l i e sandwork .o rg /pub l i ca t ions /gen~ l
Foot, D. K. (1998). Boom Bust &Echo 2000 (Revised ed.). Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross.
Frank, F. D., Fimegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 2 1 st century. HR.Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work - test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, l6(2), 250.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1 959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Haward Business Review, 81(1), 87.
Hewitt Associates. (2004). Best employers in Europe. Retrieved October 19,2005 from www.hewitt.com
Hewitt Associates. (2004). Hewitt associates study shows more engaged employees drive improved business performance and return. Retrieved October 19,2005 from http://was4.hewitt.com/hewitt/resource/newsroom/pressre2004/05- 18-04.htm
Hewitt Associates. (2004). Research brief employee engagement higher at double-digit growth companies. Retrieved October 19,2005 from www.hewitt.com
Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 2 1 st century: Important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(1), 60.
Hu, J., Herrick, C., & Hodgin, K. A. (2004). Managing the multigenerational nursing team. Health Care Manager, 23(4), 334-340.
Huselid, A. M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 29 1.
ISR. (2003). Engaged employees drive the bottom line. Retrieved November 1,2005 from http://www.isrswveys.com/Solutions/engagement.aspx
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (what makes a job good or bad?). Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 267-276.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures: Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Boomers vs. busters. Healthcare Executive, 13(6), 6.
Kovach, K. A. (1995). Employee motivation: Addressing a crucial factor in your organization's performance. Employment Relations Today, 22(2), 93.
Krantz, M. (2005). New attendee mix nixes 'talking heads.'. (cover story). Meeting News, 29(6), 1-2 1.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65.
Leach, F. J., & Westbrook, J. D. (2000). Motivation and job satisfaction in one government research and development environment. Engineering Management Journal, l2(4), 3.
Loehr, J., & Groppel, J. (2004). Full engagement. Retrieved November 1,2005 from http://www.clomedia.codcontent~templates/clo~col~engagement.asp?articleid=3 75&zoneid=119
MacManus, S. A. (1996). Young v. old: Generational combat in the 21st century. Boulder: Westview Press Inc.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. Industrial & Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation andpersonality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,370.
McShane, S. L. (1992). Canadian organizational behaviour. Homewood, IL: Richard D Irwin Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2005). Motivation in education. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from http://www.oncourseworkshop.comlMotivation003.htm
Pringle, C. D., & Kroll, M. J. (1997). Why Trafalgar was won before it was fought: Lessons from resource-based theory. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 73.
Raffini, J. P. (2005). 150 ways to increase intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Retrieved November 1,2005 from http://www.oncourseworkshop.comlMotivation007.htm
Sago, B. (2001). Uncommon threads. Business Credit, 1 O3(6), 57.
Schick, S. (2005). Incumbents strike out against CRTC ruling. Computing Canada, 31 (1 I), 4-4.
Shepard, S. (2004). Managing the millennials. Retrieved September 15,2005 from http://www.shepardcomm.com/articles.html
Solomon, C. M. (1992). Managing the baby busters. The Personnel Journal, 71(3), 52.
Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1985). Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies. Journal of Occupational Behavior (Pre-1986), 6(2), 1 1 1.
Statistics Canada. (2005). Labour force characteristics. Retrieved September 15,2005 from http://www40.statcan.ca/10 1/cst0 1 /econl 0.htm
Statistics Canada. (2005). Labour force characteristics by age and sex. Retrieved September 15,2005 from http://www40.statcan.ca/lOllcst01/labor2Oa.htm
Statistics Canada. (2005). Population projections for 2001, 2006, 201 1, 201 6, 2021 and 2026, at july I. Retrieved September 15,2005 from http://www40.statcan.ca/101/cst0l/demo23a.htm
Statistics Canada. (2001). Population 1.5 years and over by highest degree, certificate or diploma (1 986-2001 censuses). Retrieved October 2 1,2005 from http://www40.statcan.ca~Ol/cstO lIeduc42.htm
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2000). Millennials Rising. New York: Vintage Books.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2000). Millennials rising. Retrieved September, 15,2005 from www.millennialsrising.com
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.
Sujansky, J. (2004). Leading a multi-generational workforce. Occupational Health & Safety, 73(4), 16.
Taylor, F. W. (1 9 1 1). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
TELUS. (2005). Labour updates. Retrieved October 31,2005 from http:Nabout.telus.com/media~centre/labour/index.html
TELUS. (2005). New releases. Retrieved November 1,2005 from http://about.telus.com/cgi- bin/media~news~viewer.cgi?news~id=60 1 &mode=2&news-yea~2005
TELUS. (2005). TELUS history. Retrieved October 3 1,2005 from http://about.telus.com/investors/profile,~history.html
TELUS. (2005). TELUS investment profile. Retrieved October 3 1,2005 from http://about.telus.com/investors/profile.html
TELUS Human Resources. (2005). Employee Statistics
Torres-Gil, F. (1992). The new aging: Politics and change in America. New York: Auburn House.
Towers Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement (The Towers Perrin Talent Report)
Tulgan, B. (1996). Correcting the 'slacker myth' - Managing generation X in the workplace. Manage, 48(1), 14.
Verburg, P. (2002). Don't hang up. Canadian Business, 75(22), 74.
Winseck, D. (1995). A social history of Canadian telecommunications. Canadian Journal of Communication, ZO(2)Retrieved October 3 1,2005,
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J.W. Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836.
